Delhi HC Blocks ‘Domindo’s Pizza’ Over Domino’s Trademark Case

Date:

Share with Others

The Delhi High Court has issued an order restraining multiple restaurants from using the names “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” in response to Domino’s trademark infringement suit. The court also directed food delivery platforms Swiggy and Zomato to remove these outlets from their platforms.

Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that Domino’s had established a prima facie case for an injunction, stating that the absence of an ex-parte ad interim injunction would result in irreparable loss to the company.

Court’s Directive

The order prohibits the defendants, including their proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents, and franchisers, from using Domino’s trademark in any form of advertising, sales, marketing, packaging, or promotional materials. The directive extends to digital and print materials, including websites, menu cards, labels, and stationery articles.

“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,” the order stated.

Domino's Trademark

Domino’s Trademark Suit

Domino’s argued that the defendant outlets had unlawfully adopted trade names that closely resembled Domino’s trademark. The company contended that these actions infringed its statutory rights under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

According to Domino’s, the defendants used names that were phonetically, visually, and verbally similar to its former name, “Dominick Pizza.” The company claimed that such names misled the public and created confusion in the market.

The plaintiff further asserted that such deceptive practices misrepresented the origin of goods and services, leading to brand dilution and potential loss of customer trust. It argued that the unauthorised use of similar names affected its goodwill and business reputation.

Domino's Trademark

Legal Basis for the Order

The Court, after examining the submissions, observed that the case met the threshold for an injunction. The ruling stated that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Domino’s, and the absence of an immediate injunction would cause irreparable harm to the company.

“In the above circumstances, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, and if no ex-parte ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants,” the Court stated.

Platform Compliance

Following the court’s direction, Swiggy and Zomato have been ordered to delist the restaurants using the disputed names. This measure aims to prevent further instances of potential consumer confusion and ensure compliance with the Court’s directive.

Both food delivery platforms will be required to ensure that listings featuring names identical or deceptively similar to Domino’s trademark are removed. The platforms must also refrain from promoting such businesses on their digital marketplaces.

Implications and Next Steps

The ruling reinforces the protection of registered trademarks and sets a precedent for similar cases of brand name misappropriation. Legal experts suggest that this decision strengthens the enforcement of intellectual property rights, particularly in the food and beverage sector.

The defendants may appeal the ruling or seek a settlement with Domino’s. However, unless overturned, the order remains in effect, restricting the use of the contested names.

Domino’s has yet to issue an official statement following the ruling. Swiggy and Zomato have also not commented on their compliance measures.

Vakilsearch helps businesses protect their brand by handling trademark registration and legal disputes efficiently. Secure your trademark today with expert assistance.

Content Creator at Vakilsearch
I'm Atheena S Sarma, a dedicated content creator at Vakilsearch. My passion lies in transforming complex legal and compliance topics into simple, relatable content for everyone. As a key contributor to the Vakilsearch news portal, I ensure you stay informed about the latest updates in law, taxation, and more. With every article, I aim to bring you expert insights from our Vakilsearch team, explaining how these updates impact you and the steps you can take.
Atheena S Sarma

Share with Others
Atheena S Sarma
Atheena S Sarma
I'm Atheena S Sarma, a dedicated content creator at Vakilsearch. My passion lies in transforming complex legal and compliance topics into simple, relatable content for everyone. As a key contributor to the Vakilsearch news portal, I ensure you stay informed about the latest updates in law, taxation, and more. With every article, I aim to bring you expert insights from our Vakilsearch team, explaining how these updates impact you and the steps you can take.

Related Articles

Top Categories

News
Related

Textile Units Under GST Scrutiny for Misclassifying Services

In recent months, the Central Goods and Services Tax...

Delhi HC Bars Unauthorised Sharing of India Today E-Magazines

Delhi High Court ruling on India Today e-magazines: Restricts...

Bengaluru Property Tax to Rise as Govt Approves Waste Fee

The Karnataka government has approved a user fee for...