Introduction:

In a significant judgment protecting the integrity of intellectual property and the health of consumers, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors. [CS(COMM) 317/2025], granted an interim injunction against fifteen entities accused of infringing the trademark rights of the globally recognized pizza chain, Domino’s. The order was passed by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who recognized that the marks adopted by the defendants, such as “Domnic’s,” “Dominic,” “Dominic’s,” “Domnik,” “Daminic,” and “Daminic’s,” were deceptively similar and phonetically identical to Domino’s former trade name “Dominick’s Pizza,” and were capable of misleading the public. The case was initiated by Dominos IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited, the exclusive franchisee of Domino’s in India, which claimed not only infringement of their registered trademarks but also deceptive trade practices designed to ride on their brand’s substantial goodwill.

Arguments:

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ use of the impugned marks showed clear intention to deceive the public by subtly modifying the spellings of the word “Dominick” without making any substantive distinction. The plaintiffs emphasized that the defendants either wholly copied their previous mark or made only minor adjustments, such as omitting the letter ‘k’, replacing letters like ‘o’ with ‘a’, or adding and removing letters like ‘i’ and ‘s’, to retain phonetic resemblance and visual similarity. These acts were alleged to be attempts to pass off the defendants’ products as those associated with Domino’s, a brand established in 1960 in the United States and operating widely across India through Jubilant FoodWorks. The plaintiffs further contended that the proliferation of such deceptively similar entities not only diluted their brand but also confused consumers, particularly when the products involved are edible and could pose risks to public health.

Judgement:

Justice Saurabh Banerjee took special note of the nature of the industry in question, pointing out that the threshold for determining deceptive similarity in edible goods is substantially lower due to the potentially harmful consequences of misidentification. In this regard, the Court observed that, unlike general commercial products, food-related trademarks require more careful scrutiny to protect consumers from unintended consumption and brand confusion. The Court acknowledged that the average consumer, who possesses imperfect recollection and moderate intelligence, might very well mistake these lookalike marks for genuine Domino’s products. Thus, the Court emphasized the need to adopt a cautious and stringent standard in assessing the likelihood of confusion in trademark disputes involving food and beverage items.

The defendants in the matter, through their representatives including Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh and Ms. Mitali Umat, did not offer substantial rebuttal against the allegations of deceptive similarity at this interim stage. The Court, upon reviewing the tradenames of the fifteen respondents, found that there was a prima facie case of infringement and observed that the similarities in the marks were not coincidental but intentional. It concluded that the defendants’ adoption of the impugned names and logos appeared to be a calculated move to benefit from the reputation and trust associated with Domino’s, thereby engaging in unfair competition and passing off.

In granting the interim injunction, the Court restrained all fifteen defendants from using the impugned tradenames or any other name deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trademarks. In addition, Justice Banerjee also directed leading online food aggregators Swiggy and Zomato to suspend or delist the infringing entities from their platforms. This directive was made to ensure that the infringing goods were not allowed to reach consumers via digital marketplaces, where visual and phonetic similarities might mislead customers who are often making quick decisions based on brand recall. The Court noted that continued listing of the defendants’ outlets under such confusing names would effectively perpetuate the deception and allow the defendants to further exploit the plaintiffs’ goodwill.

A particularly relevant aspect of the Court’s decision was the acknowledgment of the plaintiffs’ rights not only in the registered trademark “Domino’s” but also in the historical and now-defunct trade name “Dominick’s Pizza,” which continues to enjoy residual goodwill among the public. The plaintiffs successfully argued that despite its discontinuation, the old mark remains associated with their brand in the minds of consumers and therefore deserves continued protection under trademark law. The Court concurred with this position, stating that common law rights and consumer perception are integral to determining infringement, especially in the context of established global brands with a legacy of operation.

The Court held that the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in their favor, and irreparable harm would be caused if the defendants were allowed to continue using the deceptively similar marks. The Court further ordered that summons be issued on the main suit and directed the defendants to file their written statements within the stipulated period. The matter has now been scheduled for a full hearing, where the Court will examine the issue in greater detail, possibly culminating in a permanent injunction against the infringing parties.

Through this judgment, the Delhi High Court has reinforced several key principles in trademark law, including the importance of consumer protection in edible goods, the lower threshold for assessing deceptive similarity in such cases, and the recognition of residual goodwill in discontinued marks. It has also underscored the growing importance of online platforms in enforcing intellectual property rights and the responsibility of digital intermediaries in ensuring that infringing goods are not inadvertently promoted.