Background
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Kiranakart Technologies, the parent company of the quick-commerce platform Zepto, in a trademark dispute concerning the brand name. The case was initiated after another entity challenged Zepto’s right to use the name, arguing that it infringed upon their existing trademark.
The dispute centered on whether Zepto’s branding caused confusion among consumers or if it had unlawfully appropriated an already registered mark. The opposing party sought legal intervention to restrain Kiranakart from using the name Zepto in its business operations.
Court’s Rationale
- Distinctiveness of the Zepto Mark
- The court noted that Zepto had established a unique brand identity in the quick-commerce sector, differentiating itself from similar trademarks in unrelated businesses.
- It emphasized that no direct similarity existed between Zepto’s branding and that of the opposing party.
- Prior Use and Reputation
- Kiranakart successfully demonstrated that Zepto had gained significant market recognition since its inception, establishing goodwill and consumer trust.
- The court found that Zepto’s consistent use of the mark in its rapid grocery delivery services contributed to strong brand association among customers.
- Lack of Consumer Confusion
- The court observed that there was no substantial evidence showing that consumers were misled or confused between Zepto and the claimant’s brand.
- It ruled that since both businesses catered to different sectors, the alleged trademark conflict was not legally tenable.
- No Malafide Intent
- The bench rejected the claim that Zepto had deliberately adopted the trademark to exploit an existing brand’s reputation.
- It ruled that Zepto’s branding was independently developed and did not violate intellectual property rights.
Implications of the Judgment
- For Zepto (Kiranakart Technologies) – The ruling allows Zepto to continue operating under its existing brand name without legal restrictions.
- For Trademark Law in India – The case reinforces the principle of distinctiveness in trademark disputes, particularly in fast-evolving industries like quick-commerce.
- For Businesses Facing Trademark Challenges – The judgment highlights the importance of prior use, consumer recognition, and sectoral differentiation in defending against trademark claims.
Conclusion
By ruling in favor of Kiranakart Technologies, the Delhi High Court has upheld Zepto’s trademark rights, dismissing the claims of confusion and infringement. The decision sets an important precedent for businesses navigating trademark disputes, especially in competitive and rapidly growing sectors.