Delhi High Court Protects Domino’s Trademark Against Infringing Lookalikes  

INTRODUCTION

The Delhi High Court, in an action initiated by Dominos IP Holder LLC together with Jubilant FoodWorks Ltd, examined serious allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs pointed to the unauthorized adoption and use of marks such as “Domnic’s Pizza,” “Domnik Pizza,” and “Daminic’s Pizza” by multiple defendants. These marks, according to the plaintiffs, bore deceptive similarity to their registered trademarks and earlier trade name, resulting in potential confusion for consumers and harm to the reputation painstakingly built over decades by Domino’s. The case highlights the legal safeguards provided in India for internationally reputed trademarks, particularly against misuse intended to exploit goodwill for commercial gain.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the use by the defendants of marks like “Domnic’s”, “Daminic’s”, “Domnik”, and similar variants amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks and constitutes passing off.
2. Whether the similarities—visual, phonetic, or structural—between the impugned marks and “DOMINO’S” are such as to likely mislead the consuming public.
3. Whether online food aggregators such as Zomato and Swiggy have an obligation to delist infringing listings upon being made aware of trademark violations.

BACKGROUND

Dominos IP Holder LLC, the first plaintiff, manages the intellectual property rights associated with Domino’s Pizza globally. Jubilant FoodWorks Ltd, the second plaintiff, holds the master franchise for Domino’s operations in India. The plaintiffs contended that various entities across India had deliberately adopted marks that closely imitated “DOMINO’S” as well as its earlier trade name, “Dominick’s Pizza.” The names in question included “Domnic’s Pizza,” “Domnik Pizza,” “Daminic’s Pizza,” and similar variants. These were not only being used for physical pizza outlets but were also listed on popular food aggregator platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs argued that such unauthorized usage was aimed at misleading consumers, diverting business, and unjustly profiting from the goodwill and reputation associated with the Domino’s brand.

PLAINTIFFS’ SUBMISSIONS

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned marks adopted by the defendants were both phonetically and visually similar to the registered trademarks “DOMINO’S” as well as to the prior trade name “Dominick’s Pizza.” They contended that the adoption of these confusingly similar names was no coincidence, but a calculated attempt to mislead and exploit the association that consumers have with the Domino’s brand.

Further, the plaintiffs emphasized that the defendants operated in the same field of business—namely, the food and pizza delivery service sector—thereby increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion. Given the worldwide recognition of the Domino’s brand, the plaintiffs asserted that the Court should adopt a stricter standard in examining deceptive similarity to prevent erosion of their brand value and to protect consumers from deception.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

At the interim stage of the proceedings, the primary defendant who appeared—Swiggy, listed as defendant no.17—requested additional time to file its formal reply. The other defendants had yet to submit their responses as the matter was still at an early procedural phase before the Court.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

COURT ANALYSIS AND ORDER

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after reviewing the pleadings and supporting documents placed on record by the plaintiffs, found that a strong prima facie case had been established in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court observed that the marks adopted by the defendants bore deceptive similarity to the plaintiffs’ registered marks and the earlier trade name.

Specifically, the Court noted that the defendants had either copied the plaintiffs’ mark almost entirely or made only trivial alterations. Such minor modifications included omitting letters (for example, the ‘K’ in “Dominick”), or adding or removing letters such as 'i' or 's', or substituting one letter for another in a way that still left the name phonetically and visually similar. These acts, the Court held, were aimed at creating an impression of association with Domino’s, thereby unfairly taking advantage of its longstanding reputation.

The Court also emphasized that, because the matter involved food products, the standard for determining deceptive similarity had to be more rigorous. Confusion in the context of edible items could have serious repercussions, including risks to consumer health. Hence, greater caution was warranted in assessing whether the impugned marks could mislead consumers.

Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, prohibiting the defendants from using the impugned names or any marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trademarks. This restriction extended to all modes of use, including packaging, promotional materials, menus, websites, online listings, and any form of advertising.

Additionally, the Court directed Zomato and Swiggy to promptly delist the infringing entities from their platforms and to suspend the impugned listings as specified in the suit.

CONCLUSION

The interim injunction granted in Dominos IP Holder LLC v. Domnics Pizza reflects the strong protective stance of Indian courts toward well-known trademarks, especially in sectors like food services where public trust is vital. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that even minimal variations in a famous mark’s spelling or structure will not shield an infringer if the likelihood of confusion persists.

Moreover, the order illustrates the growing responsibility placed on digital platforms to ensure that their services are not misused for intellectual property violations. The case stands as a powerful reminder that safeguarding brand equity and preventing consumer deception are priorities that courts will actively uphold. It highlights the high threshold of care required in cases involving well-known marks, particularly in industries where consumer health and safety could be impacted by such confusion.