Delhi High Court: While considering an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trade mark infringement and passing off suit concerning the mark “ZEPTO”, a Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection. The Court observed that the plaintiffs’ “ZEPTO”/
marks had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive use, commercial expansion, digital presence and promotional activities, while the defendants’ adoption of deceptively similar marks including 
, “ZEPTO FINANCE”/ 
/ 
in relation to financial services was prima facie intended to encash upon the plaintiffs’ reputation and create a false association with the plaintiffs.
Finding that the rival marks and services were likely to cause confusion amongst members of the public, and noting instances of actual confusion, the Court restrained the defendants from using ZEPTO FINANCE or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered “ZEPTO” /
marks and variants thereof, till the next date of hearing.
Background
The present application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. Plaintiff 1 is a technology-driven Indian company operating in the rapid commerce and logistics sector under the trade mark “ZEPTO”/ 
, and has obtained registrations in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39 and 43 while Plaintiff 2 is its wholly owned subsidiary operating the ZEPTO mobile application and website platform, facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers for a wide range of consumer goods.
The plaintiffs claimed rights over the registered “ZEPTO”/ 
marks and various formative marks including “ZEPTO CAFÉ”/ 
, “ZEPTO ATOM”/ 
, 
, “ZEPTO PHARMACY”, “ZEPTO CASH” and “ZEPTO PAY LATER”, used in connection with their expanding business operations. Plaintiff 2 owns domain names www.zeptonow.com (registered on 10 May 2021) and www.zepto.com (procured on 13 December 2024), to which users are automatically re-directed. It was stated that the ZEPTO platform caters to millions of customers across India, delivering products across multiple categories through its extensive logistics network. The plaintiffs further asserted that the ZEPTO marks have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive commercial use, digital presence, advertising campaigns, brand collaborations and significant investments in promotion.
The plaintiffs’ revenue grew from approximately ₹140.71 crore in FY 2021-22 to approximately ₹22,623.58 crore in FY 2025-26, supported by promotional spending exceeding ₹3,270 crore. The ZEPTO platform records an average of 2.77 million orders per day, and the plaintiffs’ website receives approximately 33.3 million monthly visitors. The plaintiffs were also recognised as India’s first unicorn of 2023.
The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant 4 was unlawfully using the impugned marks, 
, “ZEPTO FINANCE”/ 
/ 
and other deceptively similar marks on its website http://zeptofinance.com/ and Defendant 5 was using the same on social media platforms on its Instagram page accessible at www.instagram.com/zeptofinance, in relation to financial services. It was contended that the defendants had adopted the mark ZEPTO with mala fide intent, merely adding the descriptive term “Finance”, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion amongst the public and causing dilution of the plaintiffs’ well-known marks.
The plaintiffs further claimed that such use had resulted in actual confusion, with third-party complaints, legal notices and disputes being wrongly attributed to the plaintiffs due to the similarity between the rival marks. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought interim protection by way of an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
Analysis
The Court observed that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, with the balance of convenience lying in their favour and likelihood of irreparable harm being caused if interim protection was not granted. The Court noted that Plaintiff 1 was the registered proprietor of the “ZEPTO”/
marks and that the plaintiffs had acquired immense reputation and goodwill through continuous and extensive use of the marks since 2021, supported by substantial promotional expenditure, widespread recognition and a significant consumer base.
The Court observed that the plaintiffs had expanded their services to include digital payment wallet and credit facilities under “ZEPTO CASH” and “ZEPTO PAY LATER”, which were akin to financial services, whereas the defendants had adopted deceptively similar marks including 
, “ZEPTO FINANCE”, 
, 
in relation to loan facilities. Prima facie, the Court found that the adoption of such marks was intended to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs and create a false association between the defendants and the plaintiffs. The Court further noted that there was not merely a likelihood of confusion but actual confusion amongst members of the public, resulting in damage to the plaintiffs’ business, reputation and goodwill.
In particular, the Court was shown a summons issued by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai, in an unrelated civil suit naming “ZEPTO FINANCE” as a defendant, which, intended for service on the defendants, was instead delivered to the plaintiffs’ own darkstore in Mylapore, illustrating the extent of confusion caused by the impugned marks.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned marks prima facie amounted to infringement of the registered “ZEPTO””/
marks and passing off.
Decision
The Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from directly or indirectly rendering, advertising, promoting or marketing their services using the impugned marks “ZEPTO FINANCE” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ “ZEPTO”/
marks and variants thereof, till the next date of hearing. The plaintiffs were directed to comply with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within 2 weeks.
[ZEPTO Ltd. v. Sailendra Kashyap, CS(COMM) 752 of 2026, decided on 22-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Aarshia Behl, Shruti Baid, Aman Sagar, Aashi Sharma, Bhavya Manda, Ritik Raghuwanshi, Rishika Aggarwal and Anshu Tulsyan, Advocates
