Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’)for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 7 and 19 from operating fake domain names, websites and applications using the trade mark ‘Zepto’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ex-parte ad interim injunction and ordered for suspension, deletion and take down of all such websites, applications and social media accounts soliciting payments for fake job opportunities and franchises of Zepto.
Background
Plaintiff 1 (‘Zepto’) is a quick-commerce business involved in the instant delivery of groceries and essential items across various cities in India and is the sole proprietor of the trade mark 
. Plaintiff 2 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zepto which operates the Zepto website with the registered domain names of ‘zeptonow.com’ and ‘zepto.com’, and mobile applications to enable transactions between buyers and sellers of various consumer goods.
Zepto had averred that Defendants 1 to 7 as well as unknown identities/Defendant 19 were running a widespread scam wherein they were misusing Zepto’s registered trade mark and goodwill to mislead the public into paying money for applying for a Zepto franchise or for job opportunities with the plaintiffs.
Defendants 1 to 7 were operating or were connected with various infringing domain names and websites which were registered through the services offered by Defendants 8 to 12.
Zepto had further submitted that Defendants 2 and 3 were operating websites with domain names ‘zeptojob.com’ and ‘zeptojobs.in’ and were falsely projecting themselves as official platforms of Zepto for inviting applications for delivery partner roles under the Zepto trade marks.
Zepto had also identified several social media pages and groups operating on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, purporting to represent relationship managers of Zepto and demanded payments in various bank accounts.
Upon receipt of emails from defrauded customers, Zepto had issued a public notice via a LinkedIn post, warning the public about the circulation of such fake communications, advising them not to engage with unauthorized parties, and urging members of the public to verify such details before making any payment or sharing personal information.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court opined that Defendants 1 to 7 and unknown identities/Defendant 19 were misusing the registered trade mark of Zepto to confuse and mislead unsuspecting members of the public.
The Court also took note of the forged letters, misleading email correspondences and fake job postings as well as the unauthorized use of names and pictures of Zepto’s management placed on record by Zepto and opined that such documents substantiated Zepto’s allegation of fraud against Defendants 1 to 7 and other unknown entities/Defendant 19.
Thus, the Court prima facie opined that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Zepto and irreparable loss would be caused to them if the ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted at this stage.
The Court granted the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and passed the following directions till the next date of hearing:
-
Restrained Defendants 1 to 7 and 19, their employees, agents, partners, associates etc, from using the Zepto trade mark to solicit fraudulent recruitment, impersonation, phishing or offering goods and services in any manner which would amount to trade mark infringement.
-
Directed Defendants 1 to 7 and 19 to immediately suspend, block, take down and transfer all domain names and email addresses infringing on the Zepto brand name.
-
Directed Defendants 8 to 12 which are the Domain Name Registrars to immediately block and suspend the infringing websites.
-
Directed Defendants 13 and 14, to freeze all bank accounts associated with the fraudulent scheme.
-
Directed Defendant 15 and 16, the Meta Platforms and LinkedIn, to remove, take down, delete and suspend all accounts and posts associated with the fraudulent scheme.
-
Directed Defendant 17, the Department of Telecommunication to issue necessary directions to service providers to block the associated numbers.
-
Directed Defendant 18, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue orders to service providers to block, delete and suspend the infringing domain names.
The matter was listed for further adjudication on 18-2-2026.
[Zepto Pvt. Ltd. v. Owner of Domain Name Zeptonowindia.com, CS (COMM) No. 895 of 2025, decided on 26-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: N.K. Kantawala, Abhishek Dutta, K.Y. Siddharth Vardhman, Amaya Nair, Nishant Kanatawala, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Shweta Sahu, Pradyumn Sharma, Brijesh Ujjainwal, Varun Pathak, Saumya Tandon, Advocates.
