Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Domino’s in Trademark Infringement

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Domino’s in Trademark Infringement . Court Backs Brand Rights of Domino’s
In a recent and significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted relief to the globally recognized pizza brand Domino’s in a trademark infringement suit. The court directed food delivery giants Swiggy and Zomato to delist certain restaurants operating under deceptively similar names such as “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza.” This interim injunction was passed in favor of the plaintiff, Domino’s IP Holder LLC, to prevent the unauthorized use of its trademark and protect its brand identity from dilution and misrepresentation in the online marketplace.
Background of the Trademark Infringement Suit
The case titled Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Dominic Pizza & Ors. (CS(COMM) 231/2025) was filed before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants. Domino’s, represented by Advocate Pravin Anand and his team, alleged that certain entities were infringing its trademark by using deceptively similar names to “Domino’s” and “Domino’s Pizza.” The suit also sought relief in the form of damages, rendition of accounts of profit, and a direction to online food delivery platforms to delist such infringing restaurant names from their applications and websites.
The Plaintiff’s Case: Domino’s Global Recognition and Brand Equity
Domino’s asserted that it was founded in 1960 and has since grown into one of the world’s leading pizza and fast-food restaurant chains. The plaintiff emphasized that due to the longstanding and widespread use of its trademarks, including “Domino’s” and “Domino’s Pizza,” along with its distinctive red and blue color scheme, it has acquired substantial goodwill and brand recognition. The company claimed exclusive rights over the use of these marks under both common law and the Trademarks Act. According to Domino’s, the defendants had adopted names such as “Dominic” and “Domindo,” which were phonetically and visually similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, with an intent to mislead consumers and benefit from Domino’s market reputation.
Role of Swiggy and Zomato in Promoting Infringing Listings
A critical component of the plaintiff’s argument was the involvement of online food delivery aggregators Swiggy and Zomato. Domino’s contended that these platforms facilitated the visibility and reach of the infringing entities by enabling search-based prompts. When users typed the initial letters like “DOM,” “DOMI,” or “DOMIN” into the platforms’ search bars, restaurants with deceptively similar names appeared in the results. This, the plaintiff claimed, created a false association in the minds of consumers and allowed the infringers to ride on Domino’s goodwill. The plaintiff further argued that such listings were not accidental but a deliberate attempt to gain traffic by mimicking a globally trusted brand name.
Court’s Observation: Strong Prima Facie Case in Favor of Domino’s
After carefully reviewing the submissions and facts of the case, the Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that Domino’s had established a strong prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court observed that if such relief was not granted immediately, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm. Additionally, the balance of convenience was clearly in favor of Domino’s and against the defendants. The court noted that the infringing entities had no legitimate justification for adopting names so closely resembling the well-established trademark of Domino’s.
Court's Interim Order: Immediate Relief and Platform Accountability
In light of the above findings, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants, including their proprietors, directors, agents, and all persons acting on their behalf, from using the marks “Dominic Pizza,” “Domindo Pizza,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Domino’s registered trademarks. This restriction covered all forms of advertising, packaging, menu cards, labels, stationery, websites, and promotional materials. Furthermore, the court directed Swiggy and Zomato to delist the infringing restaurants from their platforms and ensure that these listings were not accessible to consumers during the pendency of the case.
Legal Significance: Upholding Trademark Sanctity in the Digital Age
This ruling carries substantial legal importance, particularly in the realm of digital commerce and platform liability. It reaffirms that domain names, online listings, and platform algorithms are not beyond the reach of intellectual property law. The order holds that online intermediaries such as Swiggy and Zomato must take responsibility and act promptly when notified of potential trademark violations. It also strengthens the position of brand owners, allowing them to take swift action against entities that attempt to exploit their trademarks in digital marketplaces by mimicking brand names and leveraging search algorithms.
Conclusion: Strong Signal to Copycat Brands and Online Platforms
The Delhi High Court’s decision sends a strong message to copycat brands and digital platforms alike. It establishes that trademark protection extends beyond traditional marketplaces and applies equally to the online ecosystem. By granting interim relief to Domino’s and directing Swiggy and Zomato to act against infringing entities, the court has upheld the principles of fair competition and brand integrity. As the matter proceeds to further hearings, the interim order stands as a powerful example of how courts can safeguard the interests of legitimate trademark owners in the rapidly evolving digital era.

Court Backs Brand Rights of Domino’s

In a recent and significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted relief to the globally recognized pizza brand Domino’s in a trademark infringement suit. The court directed food delivery giants Swiggy and Zomato to delist certain restaurants operating under deceptively similar names such as “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza.” This interim injunction was passed in favor of the plaintiff, Domino’s IP Holder LLC, to prevent the unauthorized use of its trademark and protect its brand identity from dilution and misrepresentation in the online marketplace.

Background of the Trademark Infringement Suit

The case titled Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Dominic Pizza & Ors. (CS(COMM) 231/2025) was filed before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants. Domino’s, represented by Advocate Pravin Anand and his team, alleged that certain entities were infringing its trademark by using deceptively similar names to “Domino’s” and “Domino’s Pizza.” The suit also sought relief in the form of damages, rendition of accounts of profit, and a direction to online food delivery platforms to delist such infringing restaurant names from their applications and websites.

The Plaintiff’s Case: Domino’s Global Recognition and Brand Equity

Domino’s asserted that it was founded in 1960 and has since grown into one of the world’s leading pizza and fast-food restaurant chains. The plaintiff emphasized that due to the longstanding and widespread use of its trademarks, including “Domino’s” and “Domino’s Pizza,” along with its distinctive red and blue color scheme, it has acquired substantial goodwill and brand recognition. The company claimed exclusive rights over the use of these marks under both common law and the Trademarks Act. According to Domino’s, the defendants had adopted names such as “Dominic” and “Domindo,” which were phonetically and visually similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, with an intent to mislead consumers and benefit from Domino’s market reputation.

Role of Swiggy and Zomato in Promoting Infringing Listings

A critical component of the plaintiff’s argument was the involvement of online food delivery aggregators Swiggy and Zomato. Domino’s contended that these platforms facilitated the visibility and reach of the infringing entities by enabling search-based prompts. When users typed the initial letters like “DOM,” “DOMI,” or “DOMIN” into the platforms’ search bars, restaurants with deceptively similar names appeared in the results. This, the plaintiff claimed, created a false association in the minds of consumers and allowed the infringers to ride on Domino’s goodwill. The plaintiff further argued that such listings were not accidental but a deliberate attempt to gain traffic by mimicking a globally trusted brand name.

Court’s Observation: Strong Prima Facie Case in Favor of Domino’s

After carefully reviewing the submissions and facts of the case, the Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that Domino’s had established a strong prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court observed that if such relief was not granted immediately, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm. Additionally, the balance of convenience was clearly in favor of Domino’s and against the defendants. The court noted that the infringing entities had no legitimate justification for adopting names so closely resembling the well-established trademark of Domino’s.

Court's Interim Order: Immediate Relief and Platform Accountability

In light of the above findings, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendants, including their proprietors, directors, agents, and all persons acting on their behalf, from using the marks “Dominic Pizza,” “Domindo Pizza,” or any other mark deceptively similar to Domino’s registered trademarks. This restriction covered all forms of advertising, packaging, menu cards, labels, stationery, websites, and promotional materials. Furthermore, the court directed Swiggy and Zomato to delist the infringing restaurants from their platforms and ensure that these listings were not accessible to consumers during the pendency of the case.

Legal Significance: Upholding Trademark Sanctity in the Digital Age

This ruling carries substantial legal importance, particularly in the realm of digital commerce and platform liability. It reaffirms that domain names, online listings, and platform algorithms are not beyond the reach of intellectual property law. The order holds that online intermediaries such as Swiggy and Zomato must take responsibility and act promptly when notified of potential trademark violations. It also strengthens the position of brand owners, allowing them to take swift action against entities that attempt to exploit their trademarks in digital marketplaces by mimicking brand names and leveraging search algorithms.

Conclusion: Strong Signal to Copycat Brands and Online Platforms

The Delhi High Court’s decision sends a strong message to copycat brands and digital platforms alike. It establishes that trademark protection extends beyond traditional marketplaces and applies equally to the online ecosystem. By granting interim relief to Domino’s and directing Swiggy and Zomato to act against infringing entities, the court has upheld the principles of fair competition and brand integrity. As the matter proceeds to further hearings, the interim order stands as a powerful example of how courts can safeguard the interests of legitimate trademark owners in the rapidly evolving digital era.