Delhi High Court Halts NBFC Over Zepto Trademark Infringement and Financial Fraud

DNI SUMMARY — KEY POINTS

• The Delhi High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction preventing the NBFC Naman Finlease from operating under the name Zepto Finance.
• Quick commerce leader Zepto initiated the lawsuit after receiving legal summons and notices that were intended for the lending firm's operations.
• Legal representatives for Zepto argued that the company's brand equity extends to financial services, citing its recent launch of the ZeptoCash wallet.
• The court was presented with evidence suggesting that the NBFC was involved in predatory lending practices and extortion using forged property documents.
• This judicial intervention effectively blocks the defendants from using the Zepto brand and mandates the shutdown of the associated domain name zeptofinance.com.

The Delhi High Court has taken decisive action against Naman Finlease, a non-banking financial company currently embroiled in a high-stakes trademark infringement dispute. Presiding over the case, Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ad-interim injunction that explicitly prohibits the firm and its associated directors from utilizing the brand names Zepto or Zepto Finance in their lending operations. This legal intervention follows a compelling petition from the quick-commerce giant Zepto, which highlighted the urgent need to protect its proprietary brand identity from unauthorized exploitation that had already resulted in significant operational confusion for the platform.

Trademark Infringement and Legal Intervention

The dispute initially gained momentum when the delivery platform began receiving legal notices and court summons intended for the non-banking financial entity. Zepto contended that its brand represents a coined expression possessing no inherent descriptive meaning related to financial services, yet the unauthorized usage by third parties posed a substantial risk of consumer deception. Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar, representing the plaintiff, emphasized that the reputation of the quick-commerce brand transcends its core retail registration, necessitating broader legal protections to prevent potential damage to the company’s goodwill in the competitive marketplace.

Beyond the core issue of trademark infringement, the courtroom proceedings uncovered troubling details regarding the business practices of the defendant. Reports submitted to the court indicated that Sachin Mittal, a major shareholder and director at the lending firm, is currently facing active criminal proceedings linked to the procurement of fraudulent loans. Investigators allege that the firm utilized forged property documents to secure home loans from established national and private banking institutions, while subsequently subjecting vulnerable borrowers to exorbitant interest rates and aggressive extortion tactics to ensure repayment.

Evidence of Predatory Financial Practices

The plaintiff strategically invoked the Supreme Court's established zone of legitimate expansion doctrine to justify the protection of its trademark. Drawing parallels to established industry heavyweights like Zomato and Swiggy, the legal team argued that even though the registered trademark classes did not explicitly cover financial services, the brand presence in that domain was already solidified. This was highlighted by the launch of ZeptoCash in June 2025, which introduced an in-app digital wallet and UPI facility, effectively placing the delivery platform squarely within the competitive financial services sector well before the defendants adopted the disputed name.

Evidence provided to the court proved instrumental in demonstrating that actual market confusion had already permeated the consumer base. Specifically, a civil recovery suit filed in a Chennai court served as a smoking gun, where a borrower challenging a loan disbursement explicitly listed the plaintiff's corporate address while naming the lending firm. The court examined specific instances of personal loans, some as low as twenty-seven thousand rupees, which carried predatory interest rates of one percent per day, further solidifying the necessity for an immediate halt to the defendants' activities under the impugned brand name.

Expanding Scope of Brand Protection

The court’s order represents a significant blow to the unauthorized operations of the NBFC, extending its reach to the digital infrastructure supporting the infringement. Justice Singh explicitly ordered the blocking of the domain name zeptofinance.com, effectively severing the online presence of the lending firm under the disputed banner. This judicial directive serves as a warning against the misappropriation of established brand assets and emphasizes the court's readiness to protect entities from financial entities that misrepresent themselves to the public while conducting illegal activities.

The legal battle is far from over, as the court has scheduled subsequent hearings to monitor the compliance of the defendants. The matter is slated to return to the Joint Registrar on August 21, 2026, with a more substantial review of the interim application set for the end of November. While the delivery platform has maintained a stoic stance, declining to comment further on the sub-judice matter, the court’s firm stance on intellectual property protection remains a cornerstone of the ongoing litigation process involving the quick-commerce sector.

Safeguarding Digital Marketplace Integrity

This case underscores the growing necessity for robust intellectual property enforcement in an era of rapid digital expansion. As platforms evolve into super-apps encompassing everything from groceries to digital payments, the scope of brand protection must broaden accordingly to mitigate risks of identity theft and financial fraud. The Delhi High Court continues to play a pivotal role in curbing deceptive practices, ensuring that the reputation of established digital brands is not exploited by fraudulent entities seeking to leverage popular recognition for illicit financial gain.