Zepto, the name that has become synonymous with instant grocery deliveries, has been on a rapid rise. With its presence in multiple cities, millions of customers, and an aggressive branding strategy, it seemed like nothing could slow down its expansion. But when it came to securing its trade mark in 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝟯𝟱 (𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗥𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹 & 𝗪𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀), Zepto hit an unexpected roadblock.
Someone had beaten them to it.
A pre-existing trade mark for ‘Zepto’ had been registered back in 2011 by an individual, effectively blocking Zepto’s ability to claim the name in this category. For any company, this could have been a serious setback. But instead of giving up, Zepto took a closer look at the law—and found its way through.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗨𝘀𝗲
A trade mark is meant to be used, not just owned. If a mark sits idle without being put to actual commercial use, the law allows for its 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿. Zepto, after conducting investigations, realized that the registered proprietor had never actively used the mark for any real business in 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝟯𝟱.
With this in hand, Zepto took the matter to the 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁, filing a rectification petition.
The registered trade mark owner failed to appear in court, did not file a response, and had no evidence of ever using the mark in connection with the claimed services. The court, after reviewing the evidence, ruled in Zepto’s favor, ordering the removal of the old registration. The trade mark that had once been an obstacle was now gone.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀
For Zepto, this decision clears the path for them to secure their mark in Class 35, solidifying their branding and business expansion.
For businesses and trade mark owners, it’s a reminder—𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁.
For law students and IP enthusiasts, this case is a perfect example of how trade mark law plays out in real-world business conflicts. A brand doesn’t just need protection; it needs strategy, persistence, and the right legal approach.
And for those watching the fast-paced world of intellectual property, Zepto vs. Zepto is another fascinating chapter in the ongoing evolution of brand protection in India.
𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 mentblue-news.
𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 - https://lnkd.in/guC8w-eu
mentblue mentblue-news
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.