The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Naman Finlease, a non-banking financial company (NBFC), and its directors from using the “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” trademarks in a significant interim victory for quick-commerce platform Zepto. The court’s order came after Zepto argued that the NBFC’s use of the disputed branding had caused actual consumer confusion, including legal notices and court summons intended for the lending company being mistakenly sent to Zepto.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ad-interim injunction after observing a prima facie case in favour of Zepto. The court also directed that the domain name zeptofinance.com must not be transferred to any entity associated with the defendants until further orders, preserving the status quo while the trademark dispute is adjudicated.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Zepto
The trademark infringement suit was filed by Zepto, which claimed it is the registered proprietor of the “ZEPTO” word and device marks and has built substantial goodwill around the brand.
According to the company:
- The NBFC operated under the names “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance.”
- Consumers confused the lending business with Zepto’s services.
- Zepto received legal notices and court summons relating to loans it had no connection with.
- The confusion posed a risk to its brand reputation and customer trust.
Case Overview
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zepto |
| Defendant | Naman Finlease and its directors |
| Disputed trademarks | “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Judge | Justice Jyoti Singh |
| Interim relief | Use of disputed trademarks temporarily restrained |
Why Zepto Approached the Court
Zepto told the court that it discovered the alleged infringement after receiving communications relating to loans issued by the NBFC.
The company also highlighted that it has expanded beyond quick commerce by introducing ZeptoCash, a digital wallet with in-app UPI functionality, strengthening its presence in financial services and increasing the likelihood of confusion if another financial business used a similar name.
Court Restrains Use of Disputed Branding
After considering the submissions, the court issued an interim injunction preventing the defendants from:
- Using the “Zepto” trademark.
- Using the “Zepto Finance” trademark.
- Continuing branding that may infringe Zepto’s rights.
- Transferring the zeptofinance.com domain name during the pendency of the case.
Interim Court Directions
| Direction | Status |
|---|---|
| Use of “Zepto” mark | Temporarily restrained |
| Use of “Zepto Finance” mark | Temporarily restrained |
| Transfer of zeptofinance.com | Prohibited until further orders |
| Final decision | Pending |
Trademark Dispute Centers on Consumer Confusion
A key argument presented by Zepto was that the similarity between the marks had already resulted in actual marketplace confusion, not merely the possibility of confusion.
The company cited an instance where a borrower filed a civil suit relating to an alleged loan from “Zepto Finance,” but the court summons was mistakenly delivered to Zepto’s corporate address. Zepto argued that such incidents demonstrated the reputational risks arising from the similar branding.
What Happens Next?
The Delhi High Court’s order is interim, meaning it remains in force while the case proceeds.
The matter has been listed:
- Before the Joint Registrar on August 21.
- For the next hearing on the interim application before the court on November 30.
Key Dates
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Joint Registrar hearing | August 21 |
| Next court hearing on interim application | November 30 |
Looking Ahead
The Delhi High Court’s interim order marks an important legal win for Zepto as it seeks to protect its brand identity from alleged trademark infringement. By temporarily restraining Naman Finlease from using the “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” marks and preventing the transfer of the related domain name, the court has sought to avoid further consumer confusion while the case is pending. The dispute also highlights the increasing importance of trademark protection as technology companies expand into adjacent sectors such as financial services.
Looking ahead, the court’s final ruling will determine whether the disputed branding permanently infringes Zepto’s trademark rights. The outcome could have broader implications for businesses adopting well-known brand names across different industries, reinforcing the need for comprehensive trademark clearance and brand differentiation before entering new markets.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
