The Delhi High Court has given interim relief to quick commerce platform Zepto in a trademark infringement case against Naman Finlease, a non-banking financial company (NBFC). The company was running its lending business under the names “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance,” which Zepto claimed was causing confusion among customers and affecting its brand image.
The case, registered as CS(COMM) 752/2026, was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh. Zepto’s parent company, Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited, told the court that it owns the registered trademark for the word “ZEPTO” and its logo. The company also said that “Zepto” is a unique name created by the brand and does not have any dictionary meaning.
According to Zepto, Naman Finlease was using the same brand name for its lending business and had also registered the domain name zeptofinance.com. Although the NBFC had applied for a trademark, it did not have a registered trademark for the name.
How Zepto Found Out About the Trademark Issue
The company said it came to know about the issue after it started receiving legal notices and court summons that were actually meant for Naman Finlease.
To show that people were getting confused between the two businesses, Zepto referred to a civil case filed in a Chennai court. In that case, a borrower had filed a money recovery suit related to a loan taken from “Zepto Finance.” However, the court summons carried Zepto’s official corporate address instead of the NBFC’s address.
Zepto argued that this clearly showed that its brand was being mistaken for the lending company. It said such confusion could damage the trust that customers have in the quick commerce platform.
After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court observed that Zepto had made a prima facie case and that stopping the use of the disputed name was necessary to avoid further harm until the case is decided.
Allegations Against Naman Finlease
During the hearing, Zepto also informed the court about serious allegations against Naman Finlease and its director, Sachin Mittal.
The company pointed to the Chennai case, where personal loans of ₹27,000 and ₹52,000 were reportedly given at an interest rate of 1% per day. On a simple yearly basis, this comes to around 365%, which is much higher than normal lending rates.
Zepto’s lawyer also told the court that criminal proceedings were already pending against Naman Finlease and Sachin Mittal. Referring to an investigating agency’s status report filed in a bail matter, the company claimed that forged property documents were allegedly used to obtain fraudulent home loans from private and nationalised banks.
The submissions further stated that borrowers were allegedly forced to take these loans at very high interest rates and were later threatened or pressured to repay them.
Zepto argued that being linked to these allegations because of the similar name could seriously harm its reputation. However, these allegations are still part of ongoing legal proceedings and have not yet been finally decided by the court.
Court Grants Interim Relief to Zepto
One important issue in the case was that Zepto’s trademark registration did not originally cover financial services. To address this, the company argued that well-known brands often expand into new business areas. It also said its reputation should protect it even in related sectors.
Zepto further told the court that it had already entered the financial services space by launching ZeptoCash, its in-app digital payment wallet with UPI facilities, in June 2025. Since this was launched before Naman Finlease started using the disputed name, Zepto argued that it had an earlier presence in the financial sector.
After considering the arguments, Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Zepto. The court has temporarily stopped Naman Finlease and its directors from using the names “Zepto” and “Zepto Finance” for their lending business until further orders.
The court also directed that the domain name zeptofinance.com cannot be transferred to any other party while the case is pending.
The matter will now come up before the Joint Registrar on August 21, 2026, while the Delhi High Court will hear the interim application again on November 30, 2026. The case is expected to be closely watched as it could have an impact on trademark protection and the rights of well-known brands expanding into new business sectors.