Delhi High Court Restrains NBFC from Using Zepto Trademark for Lending Business in Infringement Suit

The Delhi High Court has granted an ad interim injunction restraining non-banking financial company (NBFC) Naman Finlease and its directors from using the trademarks 'Zepto' and 'Zepto Finance' for their lending business. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order in a trademark infringement suit filed by the quick-commerce platform Zepto, which argued that the unauthorised use of its coined brand identity was causing severe reputational damage and consumer confusion. The ruling highlights the growing importance of brand protection in commercial disputes and the courts' willingness to act swiftly to prevent trademark dilution.

Background of the Dispute

Zepto, operated by Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited, is a well-known quick-commerce platform that delivers groceries and essentials within minutes. The company holds registered word and device marks for 'ZEPTO', which it describes as a coined expression with no dictionary meaning. Zepto also operates financial services through ZeptoCash, a digital wallet with an in-app UPI facility launched in June 2025.

The dispute arose when Zepto discovered that Naman Finlease, an NBFC, was operating a lending business under the identical mark 'Zepto Finance'. Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar, appearing for Zepto, informed the Court that the misuse came to light after the quick-commerce platform began receiving legal notices and court summons intended for the NBFC. This confusion between the two entities underscores the potential harm caused by unauthorised use of established trademarks in unrelated business activities.

Zepto's Arguments on Trademark Infringement

Zepto contended before the Court that it is the registered proprietor of the 'ZEPTO' word and device marks and that the defendant's use of an identical mark for financial services constitutes infringement and passing off. The plaintiff argued that the term 'Zepto' is a coined expression that has acquired significant distinctiveness and market recognition through extensive use, advertising, and investment.

Zepto further submitted that its brand recognition extends beyond the classes in which its trademarks are registered, a concept known as trans-border or trans-class reputation. The fact that Zepto itself offers financial services through ZeptoCash made the defendant's use of 'Zepto Finance' for lending operations even more confusing and damaging. The plaintiff relied on principles of trademark law that protect well-known marks against dilution, even in respect of dissimilar goods or services, consistent with the approach courts take in protecting intellectual property rights.

Criminal Proceedings Against Naman Finlease

In a significant development, the Court was informed that criminal proceedings are currently pending against Naman Finlease's major shareholder, Sachin Mittal. Investigating agency status reports allegedly describe the procurement of fraudulent loans using forged property documents, followed by exorbitant interest charges and extortion tactics against borrowers. This information added weight to Zepto's contention that the defendant's use of its brand name could cause serious harm to its reputation.

The existence of pending criminal cases against the defendant's principal shareholder raised questions about the bona fides of the NBFC's adoption of the 'Zepto' mark. Courts have consistently held that the adoption of a well-known mark by an entity with questionable credentials strengthens the case for injunctive relief. Such considerations are relevant in commercial litigation where the court must balance the interests of established brands against potential misuse.

Court's Order and Relief Granted

Justice Jyoti Singh, after considering the submissions and material placed on record, granted an ad interim injunction restraining Naman Finlease and its directors from using 'Zepto' or 'Zepto Finance' for their lending operations. The Court also restrained any transfer of the disputed domain name zeptofinance.com pending further hearings. The matter is scheduled to appear before the Joint Registrar on August 21, 2026, with the Court set to hear the interim application again on November 30, 2026.

The order reflects the Court's assessment that Zepto has established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting interim protection. The Court also appears to have considered the irreparable harm that could result from allowing the defendant to continue using the 'Zepto' mark in financial services, particularly given the overlap with Zepto's own financial services offerings. This approach is consistent with how courts handle interim relief applications in intellectual property disputes.

Implications for Trademark Protection in India

This ruling carries important implications for trademark protection in India, particularly for technology companies and startups that have invested heavily in building brand recognition. The case demonstrates that courts are prepared to grant swift injunctive relief where a well-known mark is being used by an unrelated entity, especially when such use creates confusion among consumers and potential harm to the original brand's reputation. Businesses that adopt established marks for their operations risk facing legal consequences including injunctions and damages.

Key Takeaways

The Delhi High Court restrained NBFC Naman Finlease from using 'Zepto' and 'Zepto Finance' trademarks for its lending business.

Justice Jyoti Singh granted the ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement suit filed by quick-commerce platform Zepto.

The Court also blocked the transfer of the domain name zeptofinance.com pending further proceedings.

Criminal proceedings are pending against Naman Finlease's major shareholder for alleged fraudulent loans and forged documents.

The matter will next be heard on August 21, 2026, before the Joint Registrar and on November 30, 2026, for the interim application.

The ruling reinforces the protection available to well-known trademarks against unauthorised use by unrelated entities, even across different business sectors.