The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited, restraining several businesses from using deceptively similar names to the globally recognized “Domino’s” trademark. The court passed the order in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Domino’s against fifteen different entities operating under names such as Domnic’s Pizza, Dominic’s Pizza, Domnik Pizza, Damnic’s Pizza, and similar variants.
🔍 Court’s Findings on Deceptive Similarity
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, observed that the use of these variants could confuse customers due to the phonetic and visual similarity with Domino’s Pizza. Citing the sensitive nature of food-related services, the court stressed that any deceptive similarity in this sector can result in “disastrous consequences on human health.”The judge clarified that for edible goods, the threshold for proving deceptive similarity is lower, as average consumers may not exercise due caution in distinguishing between brand names, especially when placing orders online or in fast-paced environments.
🕵️♂️ Domino’s Longstanding Trademark Legacy
Domino’s provided evidence of its trademark lineage, starting in the 1960s under the name “Dominick’s Pizza”, and its transformation to “Domino’s Pizza” in 1965. The brand has since enjoyed uninterrupted use and global recognition. The court acknowledged this longstanding history and the brand’s significant market presence in India and worldwide.
⚖️ Order to Food Aggregators: Delist Infringing Entities
In a significant move, the court also directed popular food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy to delist all entities found to be using deceptively similar marks. This highlights the increasing responsibility of digital platforms in enforcing intellectual property laws and protecting consumers from counterfeit or misleading service providers.
⏳ Next Hearing Scheduled
The matter is now slated for its next hearing on September 17, 2025, until which time the interim injunction will remain in force, barring the infringing parties from using the disputed names in any form, including marketing, packaging, delivery, and branding.
🧠 Legal Significance
This case emphasizes the Indian judiciary’s proactive stance in protecting well-known trademarks in the food sector. It reinforces the principle that consumer health and brand integrity must not be compromised by opportunistic imitation or deceptive branding.
📌 Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available judicial records and news reports from Bar and Bench as of June 19, 2025. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For detailed legal interpretations, consult a qualified trademark or IP attorney.