Delhi HC Blocks Fake Sites Misusing Zepto’s Name

Delhi HC Blocks Fake Sites Misusing Zepto’s Name. Zepto, the well-known quick-commerce company, recently faced the problem of fraudsters using its name online. Some people created fake websites and social media accounts by copying Zepto’s trademark. These pages were made to confuse the public and take unfair advantage of the company’s reputation.
To stop this misuse, Zepto went to the Delhi High Court. After looking at the case, the Court found that Zepto’s trademark was being used in an illegal way and granted interim relief in favour of the company.
Background of the Case
Zepto noticed that some people had made websites and social media pages using its name and logo without permission. These fake pages looked like they were connected with Zepto, but in reality, they were not. The main purpose behind them was to trick the public and misuse Zepto’s goodwill.
Such activities not only harm the company’s reputation but also put customers at risk, because people may trust these fake platforms and share their personal or payment details.
To stop this, Zepto filed a case before the Delhi High Court asking for protection of its trademark and brand identity.
Plaintiffs’ Position 
Zepto is well-known for its fast delivery services and operates through its official website, mobile apps, and social media pages. The company is very successful, earning more than Rs. 11,593 Crores in the year 2024-25 and spends a lot on advertising.
Zepto owns trademark registration for its name and logos, which are important for its brand. They said that the defendants created fake websites and social media accounts that looked very similar to Zepto’s official ones. These fake sites and accounts were used to trick people.
Important points made by Zepto:

The defendants used Zepto’s trademarks without permission on fake websites and social media.

They shared fake job offers, fake letters, and misleading emails to deceive people.

The defendants worked with domain name registrars, banks, and telecom companies to carry out these scams.

Zepto also released a public warning to inform people about these fake websites and accounts.

Relevant Provisions under Trademarks Act, 1999
Section 28 – Exclusive Rights of the Proprietor
Under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, This section grants the registered trademark proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. It also empowers the proprietor to take legal action against any unauthorized use or infringement and to license or assign the mark, thereby protecting its commercial value.
Section 29 – Infringement of Trademark
Section 29 defines when infringement occurs if a person uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without authorization, in a way that causes confusion, association, or dilution of distinctiveness. It covers both identical goods/services and, in certain cases, even unrelated goods if the mark is well-known.
Section 135 – Empowers courts to grant reliefs in infringement cases, including injunctions, damages, or account of profits.
Section 135 empowers courts to grant both interim and permanent remedies in infringement cases. These include temporary and permanent injunctions, damages or account of profits, delivery and destruction of infringing goods, and award of litigation costs.
Delhi High Court Ruling
The Court observed that the defendants were using Zepto’s registered trademark without any authorization. By doing this, they were creating confusion among the public and trying to benefit from the goodwill that Zepto has built over time. The Court, therefore, passed an order restraining the defendants from using the mark in any manner. This interim injunction will remain in place until the case is finally decided.
Importance of the Case
This decision shows that Indian courts take online misuse of trademarks very seriously. In today’s time, most businesses depend on digital platforms, and fraud through fake websites or accounts is a growing problem. Protecting trademarks on the internet has become just as important as in physical markets.
The order also sends a strong message that creating fake platforms using another company’s name will not be tolerated. Companies have the right to safeguard their brand, and the law provides effective remedies to stop such misuse.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's decision to protect Zepto under trademark law is an important step in the fight against online scams and brand misuse. The case continues, but the interim relief ensures that the fake activities are stopped immediately, helping both Zepto and the public.
FAQ 
Q1. What was the case about?
Ans. The case involved fraudsters creating fake websites and social media pages using Zepto’s trademark and brand identity without authorization, misleading the public and misusing the company’s goodwill.
Q2. Why did Zepto approach the Delhi High Court?
 Ans. Zepto approached the Court to protect its registered trademark, brand reputation, and customers from being misled by fake platforms that were offering false job opportunities and fraudulent schemes.
Q3. Which provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 are relevant in this case?
 Ans. The key provisions include:

Section 28: Exclusive rights of the trademark owner.

Section 29: Defines trademark infringement.

Section 135: Allows courts to grant remedies like injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods.

Q4. What did the Delhi High Court decide?
 Ans. The Court granted interim relief restraining the defendants from using Zepto’s trademark in any form, including fake websites, emails, and social media, until the case is finally decided.
Q5. What does “interim relief” mean in trademark cases?
 Ans. Interim relief is a temporary order passed by the court to immediately stop misuse or infringement of a trademark until the final hearing of the case.
Q6. How were the defendants misusing Zepto’s brand?
 Ans. The defendants created fake websites, offered fake jobs, sent misleading emails, and attempted to defraud the public by pretending to be Zepto.
Q7. Why is this case important for businesses?
 Ans. It shows that Indian courts are proactive in stopping online trademark misuse, which has become a growing threat with the rise of digital fraud.
Q8. What message does this order send?
 Ans. The ruling sends a strong message that misuse of well-known trademarks through fake platforms will not be tolerated, and companies can use legal remedies to protect their brand and customers.
Q9. How can companies protect themselves from similar frauds?
 Ans. Businesses should:

Monitor online platforms for misuse of their trademark.

Take swift legal action when infringement is detected.

Issue public warnings to educate customers about fake websites or job offers.

Q10. What should customers do to stay safe?
 Ans. Customers should only use official websites or verified apps of companies like Zepto, avoid sharing personal or financial details on suspicious links, and verify offers directly with the company.

Zepto, the well-known quick-commerce company, recently faced the problem of fraudsters using its name online. Some people created fake websites and social media accounts by copying Zepto’s trademark. These pages were made to confuse the public and take unfair advantage of the company’s reputation.

To stop this misuse, Zepto went to the Delhi High Court. After looking at the case, the Court found that Zepto’s trademark was being used in an illegal way and granted interim relief in favour of the company.

Background of the Case

Zepto noticed that some people had made websites and social media pages using its name and logo without permission. These fake pages looked like they were connected with Zepto, but in reality, they were not. The main purpose behind them was to trick the public and misuse Zepto’s goodwill.

Such activities not only harm the company’s reputation but also put customers at risk, because people may trust these fake platforms and share their personal or payment details.

To stop this, Zepto filed a case before the Delhi High Court asking for protection of its trademark and brand identity.

Plaintiffs’ Position

Zepto is well-known for its fast delivery services and operates through its official website, mobile apps, and social media pages. The company is very successful, earning more than Rs. 11,593 Crores in the year 2024-25 and spends a lot on advertising.

Zepto owns trademark registration for its name and logos, which are important for its brand. They said that the defendants created fake websites and social media accounts that looked very similar to Zepto’s official ones. These fake sites and accounts were used to trick people.

Important points made by Zepto:

The defendants used Zepto’s trademarks without permission on fake websites and social media.
They shared fake job offers, fake letters, and misleading emails to deceive people.
The defendants worked with domain name registrars, banks, and telecom companies to carry out these scams.
Zepto also released a public warning to inform people about these fake websites and accounts.

Relevant Provisions under Trademarks Act, 1999

Section 28 – Exclusive Rights of the Proprietor

Under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, This section grants the registered trademark proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. It also empowers the proprietor to take legal action against any unauthorized use or infringement and to license or assign the mark, thereby protecting its commercial value.

Section 29 – Infringement of Trademark

Section 29 defines when infringement occurs if a person uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without authorization, in a way that causes confusion, association, or dilution of distinctiveness. It covers both identical goods/services and, in certain cases, even unrelated goods if the mark is well-known.

Section 135 – Empowers courts to grant reliefs in infringement cases, including injunctions, damages, or account of profits.

Section 135 empowers courts to grant both interim and permanent remedies in infringement cases. These include temporary and permanent injunctions, damages or account of profits, delivery and destruction of infringing goods, and award of litigation costs.

Delhi High Court Ruling

The Court observed that the defendants were using Zepto’s registered trademark without any authorization. By doing this, they were creating confusion among the public and trying to benefit from the goodwill that Zepto has built over time. The Court, therefore, passed an order restraining the defendants from using the mark in any manner. This interim injunction will remain in place until the case is finally decided.

Importance of the Case

This decision shows that Indian courts take online misuse of trademarks very seriously. In today’s time, most businesses depend on digital platforms, and fraud through fake websites or accounts is a growing problem. Protecting trademarks on the internet has become just as important as in physical markets.

The order also sends a strong message that creating fake platforms using another company’s name will not be tolerated. Companies have the right to safeguard their brand, and the law provides effective remedies to stop such misuse.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision to protect Zepto under trademark law is an important step in the fight against online scams and brand misuse. The case continues, but the interim relief ensures that the fake activities are stopped immediately, helping both Zepto and the public.

FAQ

Q1. What was the case about?

Ans. The case involved fraudsters creating fake websites and social media pages using Zepto’s trademark and brand identity without authorization, misleading the public and misusing the company’s goodwill.

Q2. Why did Zepto approach the Delhi High Court?

Ans. Zepto approached the Court to protect its registered trademark, brand reputation, and customers from being misled by fake platforms that were offering false job opportunities and fraudulent schemes.

Q3. Which provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 are relevant in this case?

Ans. The key provisions include:

Section 28: Exclusive rights of the trademark owner.
Section 29: Defines trademark infringement.
Section 135: Allows courts to grant remedies like injunctions, damages, and destruction of infringing goods.

Q4. What did the Delhi High Court decide?

Ans. The Court granted interim relief restraining the defendants from using Zepto’s trademark in any form, including fake websites, emails, and social media, until the case is finally decided.

Q5. What does “interim relief” mean in trademark cases?

Ans. Interim relief is a temporary order passed by the court to immediately stop misuse or infringement of a trademark until the final hearing of the case.

Q6. How were the defendants misusing Zepto’s brand?

Ans. The defendants created fake websites, offered fake jobs, sent misleading emails, and attempted to defraud the public by pretending to be Zepto.

Q7. Why is this case important for businesses?

Ans. It shows that Indian courts are proactive in stopping online trademark misuse, which has become a growing threat with the rise of digital fraud.

Q8. What message does this order send?

Ans. The ruling sends a strong message that misuse of well-known trademarks through fake platforms will not be tolerated, and companies can use legal remedies to protect their brand and customers.

Q9. How can companies protect themselves from similar frauds?

Ans. Businesses should:

Monitor online platforms for misuse of their trademark.
Take swift legal action when infringement is detected.
Issue public warnings to educate customers about fake websites or job offers.

Q10. What should customers do to stay safe?

Ans. Customers should only use official websites or verified apps of companies like Zepto, avoid sharing personal or financial details on suspicious links, and verify offers directly with the company.