Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte interim injunction against entities accused of infringing on the registered trademarks of an international fast-food chain, stating that the adoption of deceptively similar marks is “bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the consumers and members of the trade.” The Single Bench, of  Justice Mini Pushkarna, passed the order on a suit seeking protection of registered trademarks from alleged infringement and passing off. The Court restrained defendants from using the marks “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” and directed two online platforms to remove the infringing listings.

The Court also granted exemption to the plaintiffs from undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and permitted exemption from advance service to the defendants in view of the urgency of the reliefs sought.

Also Read: SC-ST Man Abused By Calling Him Caste Name In A Place Not Within Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Accused

The plaintiffs, international operators in the fast-food restaurant industry, approached the Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of their trademarks, passing off, dilution of trademarks, trade name misuse, rendition of accounts of profit, and damages. The plaintiffs submitted that their brand originated in Michigan, USA, in 1960, initially operating under the name “Dominick’s Pizza.” In 1965, after expanding operations, the name was changed to “Domino’s Pizza.” The plaintiffs’ logo consists of two red square boxes representing dominos with three dots symbolizing the original three stores, alongside a blue domino with the restaurant’s name.

According to the plaintiffs, Domino’s has become one of the world’s largest pizza chains, operating in over 90 countries with more than 21,000 outlets globally. For the trailing four quarters ending on 8 September 2024, the global retail sales of Domino’s amounted to nearly $18.9 billion. The plaintiffs emphasized that their marks “Domino’s” and “Domino’s Pizza” have been in continuous use worldwide for over five decades, and the red and blue color combination has become distinctive of their brand.

The plaintiffs submitted that the mark “Domino’s” is inherently distinctive and bears no direct connection to pizza or fast-food services. They argued that owing to widespread use and prior adoption, they possess exclusive rights under common law and statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

It was alleged that defendants nos. 1 to 5 had unauthorizedly adopted deceptively similar trade names, including “Dominic” and “Domindo,” for their fast-food restaurant services. The plaintiffs contended that these names are phonetically and visually similar to their registered marks and were deliberately selected to deceive consumers. It was further submitted that the term “Dominic” closely resembles “Dominick’s Pizza,” the plaintiffs’ erstwhile trade name used between 1960 and 1965.

The plaintiffs stated that they became aware of these infringing entities in early 2025 through market sources. Upon investigation, it was discovered that these entities had listed themselves on food delivery platforms operated by defendant nos. 6 and 7, namely Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs submitted that the listings were made to unfairly attract customers who, due to technological barriers or limited familiarity with English, might mistake the defendants' services for those of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant entities avoided using these infringing trade names in physical outlets to evade legal action but exploited online platforms to mislead consumers. It was further alleged that certain entities did not provide mandatory regulatory details, such as FSSAI numbers, thereby concealing their identities.

The plaintiffs relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arguing that the impugned marks amounted to infringement and passing off, misappropriating the goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.

The Court, after considering the plaintiffs' submissions, observed that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case. Justice Mini Pushkarna stated that “use of the Domino’s trademarks, as well as the mark ‘DOMINICK’ in a deceptively similar manner by any third party in respect of any goods or services, including, but not limited to fast food restaurant services, especially, pizza restaurants are bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the consumers and members of the trade.”

The Court noted that the defendants’ actions amounted to prima facie infringement. It was recorded that “such activities of the defendants, amount to infringement of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights as per Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”

Further, the Court recorded that “by using the trademarks/tradenames phonetically, visually and verbally similar/ identical to plaintiffs’ erstwhile name ‘Dominick Pizza’, as well as the deceptively similar name ‘Domindo Pizza’ in connection with a fast-food restaurant, the defendant nos. 1 to 5 are guilty of duping the general public.”

The Court also considered the role of online platforms Zomato and Swiggy in listing the infringing entities and observed that “defendant nos. 6 and 7’s act of listing the restaurants of defendant nos. 1 to 5 bearing impugned Dominic trade names that is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs, amounts to infringement of plaintiffs' rights in and to its registered trademarks.”

Also Read: "Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash FIR, States ‘No Ground to Interfere with the Investigation’ in Alleged ₹2000 Crore GST Evasion and Forgery Case"

Accordingly, the Court issued the following interim directions pending further hearing:

“Defendant nos. 1 to 5, its proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents, franchisers and all others acting for and on its 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 ‘Dominic Pizza’, ‘Domindo Pizza’, or any other mark, which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, in any manner whatsoever, amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs trademarks; or so as to cause confusion or deception leading to passing off of the defendant nos. 1 to 5’s products and services, as those of the plaintiffs; or so as to cause dilution or tarnishment of the plaintiff’s trademark and packaging.”

Further, the Court directed that “defendant nos. 6 and 7 are directed to de-list the impugned listings” from their respective platforms.

The matter has been listed before the Court on 2 September 2025, with timelines set for compliance of procedural requirements, including filing of replies and rejoinders.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu Sahay, and Ms. Imon Roy

For the Defendants: None appeared

Case Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1433
Case Number: CS(COMM) 231/2025
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

[Read/Download order]