Case Name: Domino’s IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domin’d Pizza & Ors
Case Number: CS(COMM) 461/2024
Date: Thursday, 8th October, 2026
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
FACTS
The first plaintiff in this case, Domino’s IP Holder LLC, is the owner of the intellectual property of the group, including the trademark “Domino’s Pizza”. The second plaintiff, Jubilant FoodWorks Limited, has exclusive rights in India regarding the operation of Domino’s Pizza restaurants and enforcing IP rights. The plaintiffs moved the Court in the case for a permanent injunction against a few defendants, which operate under the similar-sounding names of “Domin’d Pizza”, “Domind’s Pizza”, and “Domzz Pizza”.
There was an explicit injunction granted by the Court in May 2024, directing the delivery apps to take down the above-mentioned outlets from their platforms. After that, the defendants numbered 1 to 4 came to a settlement with the plaintiffs through mediation and thus received an order against them on October 29, 2024. As for the defendant numbers 5 to 7 (the business is run by Mr. Vimal Kumar Trived) under the names “Domind’s Pizza” and “Domzz Pizza”, they never appeared at the trial, so the Court had to work with them in an ex parte manner. Thus, the plaintiffs went to the Court with the application for summary judgment concerning the defendants numbered 5 to 7.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether it amounts to trademark infringement and passing off the registered trademark of the plaintiffs, “Domino’s Pizza”, with the usage of marks “Domind’s Pizza” and “Domzz Pizza” by the defendants.
- Whether the plaintiffs can get a summary judgment as per the Civil Procedure Code in view of the failure of the defendants to defend against the suit.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XIII-A Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) are interpreted along with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151, which deal with the application of summary judgment and situations wherein a party doesn’t submit the written statement.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – The plaintiffs have argued that they function as a single economic entity in India for the purposes of safeguarding the Domino’s trademark. They claimed that the defendants maliciously used slight alterations of their trademark to take advantage of food delivery platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants have carefully chosen names which begin with “DOM,” “DOMI,” or “DOMIN” in order to prompt search bar searches for users to lead to their businesses. This was allegedly done to confuse semi-literate or non-English speakers into thinking that they were ordering from an authentic Domino’s store. The plaintiffs waived their claims for damages and costs for the purpose of obtaining summary judgment.
RESPONDENT – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 entered into a compromise agreement with the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 failed to appear before the Court and did not file a written statement and also did not present any defence to substantiate their actions.
ANALYSIS
The Court examined the business practices of Defendants No. 5 to 7. It established that they used a shared cloud kitchen in Delhi by applying confusingly similar trademarks to draw customer attention. The Court could not find any reasonable ground for such actions of the Defendants.
In its deliberations, the Court referred a lot to the prior judgments that concerned the Plaintiffs. The Court said that the rights of the plaintiffs in the foreign trademark were already established according to the judgment issued in Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. Ms. Dominick Pizza & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6135 (Ind.). Referring to the previously cited opinion, the Court pointed out that such trademarks require greater care and consideration. Otherwise, close resemblance of the trademark can create an apprehension of poor-quality food, affecting the goodwill of the plaintiffs.
The Court also relied on Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. Ms Domino Pizza & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2593 (Ind.), noting that the similar application of marks on identical products and services, especially pizzas and their online delivery, means that the defendants had deliberately acted to deceive consumers about links with the plaintiffs. Given that Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 did not turn up in court, the Court concluded that the chances of their success are non-existent and that there is no hindrance in pronouncing a summary judgment.
JUDGEMENT
The civil case has been ruled in favour of the petitioners by the High Court. The court has passed a permanent injunction against the defendants numbered 5 to 7 as well as their manufacturers, dealers, and franchisers and ordered them to cease from advertising, marketing, or selling any products, packaging, or goods using the name “Domin’d Pizza,” “Domind’s Pizza,” “Domzz Pizza,” “Domi’d Pizza,” “Dom’d Pizza,” or any other similar name. The civil suit and pending applications were disposed of on this basis.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the safeguarding of globally established trademarks from localised confusion at digital delivery services. By dispensing with the ordinary processes for judgments, the Court was able to give immediate restitution of brand reputation and safety of customers in the sector of food and drink.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
Read the Judgment copy below : Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M_s Domin’d Pizza & Ors
