Trademark Rights and Non-Use in India: What the Zepto Case Teaches Businesses

A trademark registration is not a safety net—it’s a starting point. In India, as in many other jurisdictions, trademark rights are founded not merely on paperwork, but on bonafide use in commerce. A clever name and a registered logo might provide initial brand protection, but without consistent, visible use in the market, even a valid registration can lose its enforceability.

This reality was underscored in the Delhi High Court’s March 2025 decision involving “Zepto”, now a household name in the grocery delivery space. The dispute began when Kiranakart Technologies, operators of Zepto, attempted to register their mark in Class 35. Their application was opposed by Mohammad Arshad, who had registered the same mark in 2014 and claimed use since 2011. Faced with the challenge, Kiranakart filed a rectification petition, arguing that the earlier registration had not been used in trade for years. What followed was not just a legal dispute—it became a wake-up call to all brand owners about the fragility of dormant trademarks.

The Court ultimately agreed with Kiranakart, holding that Arshad had failed to demonstrate any commercial use of the mark and had not even appeared to defend his rights. As a result, the ‘Zepto’ registration was cancelled, reinforcing a key tenet of trademark law: use is the foundation of trademark rights.

The Law Behind the Lesson: Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act

Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, serves as a safeguard against the monopolisation of unused marks. It permits cancellation of a registered trademark if it has not been used for a continuous period of five years, ending three months prior to the filing of a rectification application. The goal is to ensure that the register reflects marks that are actually in use and contributing to commerce.

In this case, the Delhi High Court made several crucial findings. Arshad had offered no proof of commercial activity, branding, advertisements, or online presence associated with the ‘Zepto’ mark. He did not respond to the notice issued nor attend hearings. The absence of rebuttal, paired with the lack of use, led to an order for cancellation under this section.

A Strategic Move: Proactive Use of Rectification

What’s noteworthy is Kiranakart’s proactive legal approach. Rather than defend a prolonged opposition proceeding, they initiated rectification under Section 57, flipping the script in their favour. This strategy allowed them to frame the dispute on their terms and avoid unnecessary delays. For businesses facing trademark obstacles, especially in crowded sectors, such anticipatory action can be a decisive advantage.

By challenging the validity of the opponent’s mark instead of being reactive, Kiranakart not only cleared the path for their own brand but also sent a strong message to businesses and IP professionals: don’t sit back when the opportunity to resolve a potential block proactively is within reach.

Why This Case Matters to Every Brand Owner

For many businesses, securing a trademark is a check-box exercise. But trademarks are not static—they are living legal assets. Their strength comes not from their presence in a register but from continuous, genuine use in the market. The Zepto case exemplifies the risk of assuming a registration alone is enough.

This is particularly relevant for:

Startups aiming to build visibility quickly, only to find old marks in their path. Legacy companies holding registrations in multiple classes they never operate in. And businesses eyeing expansion into new segments through licensing, franchising, or diversification—all of whom must ensure their marks are not vulnerable to challenge.

The takeaway is clear: unused trademarks are not a hidden strength—they are a legal liability.

What Qualifies as Use?

Indian courts interpret ‘use’ broadly, but not indefinitely. Use must be public, commercial,

and provable. Affixing the mark to goods or services, including on packaging or labels, qualifies. So does using the mark in advertisements, catalogues, brochures, digital promotions, e-commerce platforms, or social media. Even modest commercial activity can constitute use.

However, the emphasis is on bonafide intent and visibility. It is not enough to plan to use a mark—there must be concrete evidence of actual application in the marketplace. In the absence of this, even a decade-old registration can be struck down, as it was in Zepto’s case.

The Judicial Trend: Use Over Registration

The Delhi High Court’s judgment is not an outlier. Indian courts have, in a series of decisions, upheld the principle that registration without use is legally tenuous.

In Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-op. Milk Producers (2018), the Supreme Court stressed that similarity in names alone could not trump domain separation and actual use.

In ITC v. Nestlé(2016), speculative registration was held to be insufficient where commercial use wasn’t evident. And in Cornitos v. Corniche (2021), the Delhi High Court gave weight to real-world business activity over mere registry entries.

The pattern is unmistakable: trademark law protects doers, not placeholders.

Are You Sitting on a Vulnerable Mark?

This case serves as a prompt for brand owners to take stock. Has your trademark been idle for over three years? Are there registrations in classes you no longer plan to enter? Can you immediately retrieve proof of usage—advertisements, invoices, domain names, or promotional material?

If your answer to any of these is no, it may be time to conduct a trademark audit, consolidate class strategy, and update your usage records. A dormant registration could be challenged—and worse, it might derail your expansion before you even begin.

In Conclusion

The Zepto case is more than a story of a brand winning a legal fight. It is a case study in how Indian courts continue to emphasize commercial substance over procedural formality in trademark law. What emerges clearly is that trademark rights do not operate in a vacuum—they exist in the real world of markets, customers, and visible brand activity. If your trademark doesn’t appear in the real world, its legal standing begins to fade.

The broader lesson for founders, marketing heads, legal teams, and brand custodians is this: trademark protection is not a one-time event. It is a continuing obligation that includes periodic evaluation of use, active market presence, and an audit of risks linked to dormant or defensive filings.

Businesses should consider filing trademarks with strategic scalability in mind, maintaining thorough documentation of usage, and conducting regular audits to assess vulnerability. It is equally important to be prepared to act swiftly—whether through opposition, rectification, or

rebranding strategies—when dormant marks pose legal or commercial threats.

In trademark law, as in business—if you’re not using it, you’re already losing it. Make sure your mark tells the story you want the world to hear.