Delhi High Court stops 15 entities from using names deceptively similar to Domino’s Pizza.
Court warns such confusion over food brands could harm public health.
New Delhi: Today, on June 19, the Delhi High Court has recently granted temporary relief to Domino’s Pizza by stopping 15 businesses from using names that sound very similar to ‘Domino’s’ to sell their pizza products.
These names included ‘Domnic’s’, ‘Dominic’, ‘Dominic’s’, ‘Domnik’, ‘Daminic’, ‘Daminic’s’, and others.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who passed the order, made it clear that using similar names for food items could lead to serious risks for customers.
He said,
“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.”
Domino’s shared with the Court that it was first started in 1960 under the name ‘Dominick’s Pizza’. In 1965, the company changed its name to ‘Domino’s Pizza’, and since then, it has been using the trademarks ‘Domino’s’ and ‘Domino’s Pizza’ consistently.
The company found out through market sources that 15 other businesses were using the old name ‘Dominick’s Pizza’, which used to belong to Domino’s itself.
Due to this, Domino’s approached the Delhi High Court asking for a permanent ban (injunction) on these businesses to stop them from using similar names.
The company also wanted to prevent these entities from doing anything that would hurt the brand’s name and value — this includes trademark infringement, passing off (pretending to be another brand), dilution of brand identity, and tarnishment of reputation.
The Court looked at the matter and observed that the names used by the defendants (the 15 businesses) were “deceptively similar” and sounded almost the same as the older Domino’s name, ‘Dominick’s Pizza’, as well as the present brand name, ‘Domino’s’.
The Court noted,
“The impugned marks are also deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ presently registered mark and consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection are likely to associate the defendants’ product with that of the plaintiffs.”
The Court further said that since these defendants are also in the business of selling pizzas, they would obviously be aware of the Domino’s trademark. Hence, they had no genuine reason to copy or adopt a similar name.
It clearly looked like they were trying to benefit from Domino’s long-standing reputation. According to the Court, this could easily confuse regular customers.
Because of all this, the Court passed an order saying that, “till the next date of hearing,” all the defendants must stop advertising, selling, or marketing their products using these similar names.
Additionally, the Court gave instructions to online food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy to remove or suspend all such listings that used the deceptive brand names.
The case will come up for further hearing on September 17.
In this matter, lawyers Shantanu Sahay, Imon Roy, and Vareesha Irfan appeared on behalf of Domino’s. On the other hand, Advocates Abhay Pratap Singh and Mitali Umat represented Swiggy.
Case title:
Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr vs M/s Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Advocates
