Delhi High Court: In a rectification petition filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) seeking cancellation/ removal of the trade mark ‘ZEPTO’ in the name of Respondent 1 (hereinafter ‘impugned mark’) from the Register of Trade Marks, Amit Bansal, J., held that the impugned mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks under the provisions of Section 47(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Court allowed the present petition and directed the Registry to remove the impugned mark ‘ZEPTO’, in the name of Respondent 1 from the Register of Trade Marks.
Background
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited (‘petitioner’) was a highly reputed and well-established startup and provided quick commerce service under the marks ‘ZEPTO’ and 
The petitioner had licensed the mark ‘ZEPTO’ and its mobile application to third-party sellers who sell consumer products to the end consumers placing orders on the ZEPTO platform. The petitioner currently had a presence in over 10 cities across India and over 8 million customers have placed orders on its platform. In the year 2023-24, the petitioner’s turnover was approximately Rs. 4252 crores.
Since its commencement, the petitioner had widely advertised and promoted the ‘ZEPTO’ marks by way of print, television, digital and outdoor campaigns. The ‘ZEPTO’ marks were conspicuously displayed on the petitioner’s website, mobile application, packaging, delivery executive’s apparel, bags, etc. The petitioner also actively promoted the ‘ZEPTO’ marks in the Indian markets by sponsoring events and collaborating with well-known entities and celebrities.
Respondent 1 had registered the mark ‘ZEPTO’ in classes 9 and 35. The impugned mark was registered in the name of Respondent 1, with effect from 14-07-2014 with a user claim since 1-4-2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that Respondent 1 had not filed his reply to the present petition, which indicated that he had nothing substantial to put forth on merits by way of a response to the averments made in the petition. It was trite law that in the absence of any denial of the averments made in the petition, the same has to be taken as admitted. Thus, the Court stated that the averments made in the petition were deemed to be admitted.
The Court observed that the petitioner had filed an affidavit to support its averments regarding non-use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1 in relation to the services in class 35 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition. Further, the Court stated that a perusal of Section 47(1)(b) of the Act would reveal that a registered trade mark was liable to be taken off the Register of Trade Marks if up to a date three months prior to the date of filing of the rectification petition, the same was not used in relation to those goods/ services in respect of which it was registered for a continuous period of at least five years from the date on which the mark was entered in the Register of Trade Marks.
The Court stated that the petitioner had continuously and extensively been using the ZEPTO marks since July 2021 in India and, by virtue of their widespread advertisement and promotion, had acquired immense goodwill and reputation thereunder. On the other hand, Respondent 1 had not made any use of the impugned mark in relation to the aforesaid services in class 35. Despite the aforesaid, Respondent 1 opposed the petitioner’s application for the mark ZEPTO in class 35. Therefore, the Court stated that the petitioner was aggrieved by the continued subsistence of the impugned mark on the Register of Trade Marks.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks under the provisions of Section 47(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Court allowed the present petition and directed the Registry to remove the impugned mark ‘ZEPTO’, in the name of Respondent 1 from the Register of Trade Marks.
[Kiranakart Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Arshad, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1401, decided on 3-3-2025]
For the Petitioner: Shruti Baid, Aman Sagar and Anmol Kasana, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Gurleen Kaur Waraich and Kritarth Upadhyay.