Deceptively similar names used for competing pizza businesses, reinforced by online listings designed to suggest association with Domino’s, amounted to trademark infringement. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 from using names such as ‘Domin’d Pizza’, ‘Domind’s Pizza’, and ‘Domzz Pizza’, or any other mark deceptively similar to Domino’s registered trademarks, for advertising, selling, or marketing their products.
The Court observed that listings for the infringing outlets surfaced when consumers typed ‘DOM’, ‘DOMI’, ‘DOMIN’ on food-delivery platforms, a strategy the Court found was aimed at semi-literate consumers or those familiar with the Domino’s brand but less comfortable with English. The defendants operated through shared or common physical and cloud kitchens, and shared FSSAI registrations linked them to the same proprietor.
The Court reiterated that marks used for food items and eateries require a higher degree of care and caution. Deceptively similar names can create legitimate apprehensions of quality compromise and damage a brand’s goodwill and reputation.
Briefly, Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited filed a suit alleging infringement of the Domino’s trademarks by pizza businesses using similar names, including ‘Domin’d Pizza’, ‘Domind’s Pizza’ and ‘Domzz Pizza’. Jubilant holds the exclusive right to operate Domino’s franchises in India and assists in protecting its intellectual property rights.
Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 settled the dispute, and the suit was decreed against them on that basis. Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 did not appear despite service; their right to file a written statement was closed, and the Court proceeded ex parte against them. The judgment concerned the plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment against these remaining defendants.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found that the defendants’ business names were phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ marks. Their listings on Zomato and Swiggy appeared through search prompts when consumers typed ‘DOM’, ‘DOMI’ or ‘DOMIN’. The Court observed that this strategy deliberately targeted semi-literate consumers or those familiar with Domino’s but less familiar with English, potentially misleading them into believing they were ordering from a genuine Domino’s outlet.
The Court also found that Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 operated through shared or common physical and cloud kitchens, and that their FSSAI records linked the outlets to the same proprietor. The common ownership findings were supported by the shared FSSAI registration of Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and the database records identifying the proprietor of Defendant No. 7.
