Delhi HC: Lower Threshold For Deceptive Similarity In Food Sector | Grants Ex Parte Injunction And Directs Takedown For Trademark Infringement
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from using marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks. The Court held that the use of names such as “Domnic’s,” “Dominic,” and similar variations were likely to cause confusion among consumers and infringe upon the plaintiffs’ rights. Accordingly, it issued an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants and directed online food aggregators to delist the infringing entities from their platforms.
The plaintiffs, Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant Food Works Limited, instituted a civil commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against a group of defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and tarnishment. Plaintiff No. 1, Domino’s IP Holder LLC, is a U.S.-based entity responsible for managing the intellectual property of Domino’s Pizza LLC. Plaintiff No. 2, Jubilant Food Works Limited, is the exclusive Master Franchisee in India under a formal agreement and supports enforcement actions related to intellectual property.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were operating under names deceptively similar to their trademarks, including “Domnic’s Pizza,” “Domnik Pizza,” “Dominic Pizza,” “Dominic’s Pizza,” “Daminic's Pizza,” “M/s Dominic Pizza,” and “Dominick’s Pizza.” These names, according to the plaintiffs, bore phonetic and visual similarity to their erstwhile name “Dominick’s Pizza,” used between 1960 and 1965, before the company adopted the brand “Domino’s Pizza.” The plaintiffs presented trademark registrations under Classes 29, 30, 39, 42, and 43 in India and highlighted prior recognition of their rights in similar matters before the Delhi High Court.
The defendants included entities engaged in the food and beverage sector using the impugned marks, as well as the online platforms Zomato and Swiggy, through which the businesses were listed and operated. A “John Doe” defendant was also named for unidentified infringing parties. The plaintiffs contended that the marks were adopted with dishonest intent to divert consumer traffic and leverage the reputation of the Domino’s brand.
In January 2025, the plaintiffs discovered the unauthorized usage through market monitoring and online platforms. Subsequent investigations revealed that the infringing outlets operated under one unknown franchising structure using similar names. The plaintiffs submitted that despite attempts at physical and digital service, many of the defendants remained unserved due to fictitious addresses and evasive conduct. They stressed the difficulty in serving entities that operated primarily online.
They also pointed out prior court acknowledgments of their rights in similar disputes and noted the long-standing, continuous, and exclusive use of their trademarks. In support of their claim, a comparative chart demonstrating the similarities in marks was provided.
The plaintiffs urged the Court to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in light of deceptive similarity, business overlap, and the resulting irreparable harm and consumer confusion. They stated the heightened risk posed in the food industry where any confusion could have consequences on human health.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee recorded that “it is prima facie evident that the marks of the defendants are deceptively similar and phonetically identical to the plaintiff no.1 erstwhile trade name ‘Dominick’s Pizza’.” The Court noted that “the defendants have either wholly copied the plaintiffs’ mark or have just removed the letter ‘K’ from the plaintiffs’ mark ‘Dominick’, and have minor alterations such as addition or subtraction of the letter ‘i’, or ‘s’, or replacement of the letter ‘o’ with ‘a’, so as to come close to plaintiffs’ trademarks and ride on their goodwill.”
The Court stated that the impugned marks were “deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ presently registered mark” and that “consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection are likely to associate the defendants’ product with that of the plaintiffs.” It observed that since the defendants operated in the same line of business as the plaintiffs, “they would have been aware of the plaintiffs’ trademarks, considering its long-standing and continuous use.”
The Court recorded that “there exists no justifiable reason for the defendants to adopt the impugned marks that are similar to those of the plaintiffs.”
Given the nature of the dispute, which involved edible goods, the Court noted that “the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases.” It stated that “any confusion between such products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health” and, hence, “this Court has to adopt a more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion.”
On assessing the balance of convenience, the Court found that “the plaintiffs are thus prima facie entitled for protection as sought by them against the defendants since the balance of convenience lies in their favour and they will incur irreparable loss and injury if an ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted in their favour.”
The Court ordered that “till the next date of hearing, the defendant nos.1 to 15, its proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents, franchisers and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from advertising, selling, offering for sale, marketing etc.
Any product, packaging, menu cards and advertising material, labels, stationery articles, website or any other documentation using, depicting, displaying in any manner whatsoever, the marks/ names ‘Domnic’s’, ‘Dominic’, ‘Dominic’s’, ‘Domnik’, ‘Daminic’, ‘Daminic’s’… or any other mark identical/ deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs’ trademarks ‘DOMINO’S’… or its derivatives/ formatives so as to not infringe the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights in any manner whatsoever.”
The Court further directed that “the defendant nos.16 and 17 are directed to delist, takedown, suspend the impugned listings from its Mobile Application, Website and/ or any other platform, as enumerated in paragraph 45 of the plaint.”
Notice was issued. Learned counsel for the defendant no.17 accepted notice and sought four weeks to file a reply. He was granted the said time, with a direction that any rejoinder thereto, if filed, must be submitted within two weeks thereafter.
Upon filing of process fee, notice was directed to be issued to the remaining defendants through all permissible modes, including through email, returnable before the Court on 17.09.2025.
Replies were directed to be filed within four weeks, and rejoinders thereto, if any, were to be filed within two weeks thereafter. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC were directed to be complied with within one week. The matter was listed before the Court on 17.09.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shantanu Sahay, Ms. Imon Roy and Ms. Vareesha Irfan, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh and Ms. Mitali Umat, Advocates for Defendant No. 17
Case Title: Domino’s IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 317/2025
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
