Delhi High Court Bars 3 Pizza Outlets From Using 'Domind's', 'Domzz' And Other Names Mimicking Domino's

The Delhi High Court on 8 October, permanently restrained three Delhi pizza outlets from using names deceptively similar to Domino's trademarks, including “Domind's Pizza”, “Domzz Pizza”, “Domin'd Pizza”, “Domi'd Pizza” and “Dom'd Pizza”.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order in the suit filed by Domino's IP Holder LLC, which owns the group's intellectual property, and Jubilant FoodWorks, which operates Domino's franchises in India.

The Bench observed that the outlets had “no plausible justification to justify their conduct, which amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' trader mark.”

Plaintiffs alleged that the outlets used phonetically and deceptively similar names to sell identical goods, namely pizzas, through online delivery platforms. The suit named seven outlets operating across Karol Bagh, Inderlok and Tis Hazari, along with Zomato and Swiggy, which were asked to delist the impugned listings. The plaintiffs also sought Rs. 2,00,01,000 in damages.

The Court noted that the listings were “systematically enabled by search bar prompts that appear automatically once the initial three to five letters of the plaintiffs' well-known brand, namely, 'DOM', 'DOMI', or 'DOMIN' are typed by consumers.”

It observed that the strategy was “deliberately deployed to target the semi-literate consumers or those who are familiar with the 'DOMINO'S' brand name but maybe due to a lack of familiarity with English, be mislead into believing that they are indeed ordering from the plaintiffs' genuine establishment.”

Further, the Bench found that the outlets operated through shared physical and cloud kitchens using Zomato's “Multi Brand Kitchen” option. Two outlets also shared an identical Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) registration number.

Relying on its earlier ruling in Dominos IP Holder LLC v. Dominick Pizza, the Court held that “a higher degree of care and caution is required” where trademarks relate to food or eateries. It observed that an intention to capitalise on a well-known brand's reputation through a deceptively similar mark “can give rise to legitimate apprehension of quality compromise” and damage the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation.

As the three outlets had not appeared in the proceedings, the Bench found no prospect of the defendants succeeding and no impediment to pronouncing summary judgment. The plaintiffs did not press their claims for damages and costs. It decreed the suit after the three outlets failed to appear and found no impediment to pronouncing summary judgment.

It permanently restrained the three outlets, their proprietors, partners, agents and others acting on their behalf from using the impugned names or any mark identical or deceptively similar to Domino's registered trademarks on products, packaging, menus, advertisements, websites or other documentation.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the suit and pending applications.