Delhi High Court: In an application for permanent injunction filed by Domino’s and its group companies (‘the plaintiffs’) against several fast-food joints with deceptively similar trade marks/names, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J* opined that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Dominos and restrained Defendants 1-15 from infringing the plaintiffs’ trade mark.
Background
In the present case, Plaintiff 1 is Domino’s IP Holder LLC, a fast-food corporation, incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA. Plaintiff 2 is Jubilant Food Works Ltd. (formerly known as Domino’s Pizza India Ltd.) which has the exclusive rights to operate Domino’s franchises in India under a Master Franchise Agreement with Domino’s Pizza International Franchising Incorporated.
DOMINO’S was founded in the year 1960 when Tom and James Monaghan bought a pizza store by the name of ‘Dominick’s Pizza’. The brothers operated two more restaurants by the same name and subsequently changed it to ‘Domino’s Pizza’.
It was contended by the counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have been continuously and uninterruptedly using the trade marks ‘DOMINO’S’ ‘Domino’s Pizza’ and ‘Domino’s’. The plaintiff’s marks are as follows: 
It was further contended that the plaintiffs’ rights over the mark ‘DOMINICK’ (their erstwhile name) 
was also affirmed in Domino’s IP Holder LLC v. Dominick Pizza,2022 SCC OnLine Del 2684 and Domino’s IP Holder LLC v. Dominic Pizza, CS(COMM) 357 of 2024, decided on 2-5-2024.
Defendants 1 to 15 are various entities who are operating fast-food franchises under the names of ‘Dominic’s’ ‘Dominic’ ‘Domnic’s’ ‘Domnik’ ‘Daminic’s’ which are deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs’ erstwhile name ‘Dominick’s Pizza’. The defendants’ used the following marks: 
Defendants 16 and 17 are Zomato and Swiggy respectively which are online aggregators that provide Defendants 1 to 15 with a platform to sell their products.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ adoption and use of the mark is with a dishonest intent of deceiving and luring customers to their establishments. Thus, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon their trade mark, passing off, and dilution and tarnishment of their brand has been sought Domino’s.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Comparing the impugned mark with the original, the Court observed that it is prima facie evident that the defendants’ mark is deceptively similar and phonetically identical to the original ‘Dominick’s Pizza’ mark.
The Court noted that the defendants’ have merely made some minor alterations in spelling by replacing the letter ‘i’ with ‘a’ and so on. The changes are so minute that consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection are bound to confuse the defendants’ mark to be associated with the original ‘Dominick’s Pizza’ mark. Moreover, the fact that both the defendants and the plaintiffs are in the same line of business implies that the defendants were well-aware of the plaintiffs’ long-standing and continuous use of the ‘DOMINOS’ and ‘Dominick’s Pizza’ trade mark thereafter bolstering the plaintiffs’ contention of defendants’ mala fide intent.
The Court further noted that both parties operate in the food industry where the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower since sale of poor-quality products could have severe health implications.
Accordingly, the Court allowed ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Domino’s IP Holder LLC noting that denial of the same would cause them irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrains Defendants 1-15, and all others acting on their behalf 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 the impugned trade marks/ names or any other mark identical/ deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs’ trade marks.
Furthermore, Zomato and Swiggy are directed by the Court to suspend Defendants 1 to 15’s listings on their mobile application as well as webpages.
The matter is further listed on 17-9-2025.
[Domino’s IP Holder LLC v. Domnics Pizza, CS(COMM) 317 of 2025, decided on 28-5-2025]
*Judgement authored by: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiffs: Shantanu Sahay, Imon Roy, Vareesha Irfan, Advocates
For the Defendants: Abhay Pratap Singh, Mitali Umat, Advocates
