Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction In Favour Of Domino's; Orders Online Food Aggregators To Delist ‘Deceptively Similar’ Food Joints From Their Platforms
The Delhi High Court directed online food aggregators like Zomato and Swiggy to delist these impugned listings from their platforms.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Domino's IP Holder LLC and Jubilant Food Works Limited (formerly known as Domino's Pizza India Limited).
The injunction restrains M/S. Domnics Pizza and other such pizza joints from using marks/names such as "Domnic's", "Dominic", "Dominic's", "Domnik", "Daminic", and "Daminic's". The Court also directed online food aggregators Zomato and Swiggy to delist these impugned listings from their platforms.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee held, “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are thus prima facie entitled for protection as sought by them against the defendants since the balance of convenience lies in their favour and they will incur irreparable loss and injury if an ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted in their favour.”
Advocate Shantanu Sahay appeared for the Plaintiffs, while Advocate Abhay Pratap Singh represented the Defendants.
Brief Facts
The plaintiffs, Domino's IP Holder LLC and Jubilant Food Works Limited, filed a plaint seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, and damages.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “Relevantly, since the present dispute involves edible products, this Court is of the view that the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases. In essence, any confusion between such products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, this Court has to adopt a more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care.”
The Bench remarked, “Furthermore, the defendants operate in the same line of business as that of the plaintiffs, they would have been aware of the plaintiffs’ trademarks, considering its long-standing and continuous use. Under such circumstances, there exists no justifiable reason for the defendants to adopt the impugned marks that are similar to those of the plaintiffs.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant nos.1 to 15, its proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents, franchisers and all others acting for and on their 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 “Domnic’s”, “Dominic”, “Dominic’s, “Domnik”, “Daminic”, “Daminic’s” or any other mark identical/ deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs’ trademarks “DOMINO’S” or its derivatives/ formatives so as to not infringe the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights in any manner whatsoever.”
“Further, the defendant nos.16 and 17 are directed to delist, takedown, suspend the impugned listings from its Mobile Application, Website and/ or any other platform,” the Bench further directed.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter on 17th September, 2025.
Cause Title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors. (CS(COMM) 317/2025)
Appearance:
Plaintiffs: Advocates Shantanu Sahay, Imon Roy and Vareesha Irfan
Defendants: Advocates Abhay Pratap Singh and Mitali Umat