📌 Introduction
Trademark law in India plays a crucial role in preventing misuse and ensuring fair commercial practices. One key provision under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is Section 47(1)(b), which allows for the cancellation of a registered trademark if it has not been used for five consecutive years. A recent legal battle involving the quick commerce brand Zepto has brought this section into the spotlight.
⚖️ Understanding Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act
Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 states that a registered trademark may be removed from the register if it has not been in use for a continuous period of five years from the date of registration, and there is no valid justification for non-use. This provision ensures that trademarks are not hoarded unfairly and remain in active commercial use.
🔥 The Zepto Trademark Dispute
Zepto, the emerging quick-commerce startup, faced a trademark challenge when an entity with prior rights over the name “Zepto” sought its removal from the registry under Section 47(1)(b). The contention was that the original trademark holder had not used the mark for the required period, making it eligible for cancellation.
⚔️ Key Arguments in the Case
1️⃣ Claim for Prior Use: The opposing party argued that the Zepto mark was not in active use for over five years, making it subject to removal under the law.
2️⃣ Defense by Zepto: Zepto contended that its brand was distinct and had gained substantial recognition in the quick-commerce sector, arguing against the cancellation claim.
3️⃣ Judicial Interpretation: The case highlighted how courts assess genuine use, considering factors such as commercial activities, branding, and consumer recognition.
🚀 Impact of the Case on Indian Trademark Law
- ✅ Reinforces the Importance of Active Use – Businesses must ensure continuous use of their trademarks to avoid cancellation.
- ✅ Prevents Trademark Hoarding – Entities cannot hold trademarks indefinitely without commercial use.
- ✅ Legal Clarity on Quick-Commerce Branding – The case provides insights into protecting emerging brands in fast-growing industries.
📢 Conclusion
The Zepto case has underscored the significance of Section 47(1)(b) in preventing non-use of trademarks and ensuring fair market practices. Businesses must actively use their trademarks to avoid legal challenges and maintain exclusive rights. As India’s trademark landscape evolves, this case serves as a critical precedent for future disputes.