---
title: "Domino’s Secures Ex Parte Injunction Against Deceptively Similar Marks in Online Food Platforms "
date: 2025-07-01
author: "Abha Shah"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/intellectual-property-rights/dominos-wins-trademark-case/
---

# Domino’s Secures Ex Parte Injunction Against Deceptively Similar Marks in Online Food Platforms 

Posted On - 1 July, 2025 •

By - [Abha Shah](https://www.indialaw.in/people/abha-shah/ "Posts by Abha Shah") and [Riddhi Agarwal](https://www.indialaw.in/author/riddhi-agarwal/ "Posts by Riddhi Agarwal")

[![a group of people standing outside of a dominos store](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/pgofepx3wyq.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/pgofepx3wyq.jpg)

## ***Introduction *** 

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of *Dominos IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited*, restraining multiple entities from using deceptively similar marks such as “Domnic’s”, “Dominic’s”, “Daminic’s” and other names resembling the registered trademark “Domino’s”. 

## ***Background of the Case*** 

Domino’s IP Holder LLC (Plaintiff No. 1) is a Limited Liability Corporation incorporated in the USA. It is a subsidiary of Domino’s Pizza LLC and owns and manages its intellectual property. Jubilant Food Works Limited (Plaintiff No. 2) has the exclusive rights to operate Domino’s franchises under Master Franchise Agreement with Domino’s Pizza International Franchising Inc in India.  

Dominos was founded in 1960 in the USA, by Tom Monaghan and his brother James. Since then, the plaintiffs have expanded its worldwide operations to over 90 countries and currently operate more than 21,000 stores all over the world.  

In January 2025, the Plaintiff learned through the market that the Defendant No.s 1 to 15, who are various entities that unauthorizedly adopted the trade names/ marks “*Domnic’s”, “Dominic”, “Dominic’s”, “Domnik”, “Daminic”, “Daminic’s*”  and were listed on online food platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. These names were alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks and earlier trade name “Dominick’s Pizza” (used from 1960 to 1965) Zomato is Defendant No. 16 and Swiggy is Defendant No. 17, and they host the listings of infringing businesses, but are not infringers themselves. 

## ***Plaintiff’s Contentions*** 

For over five decades, the plaintiffs have continuously and uninterruptedly used the trademarks “Domino’s, Domino’s Pizza” and other device marks. The Plaintiffs had also been granted registration in India under classes 29, 30, 39, 42 and 43. The Plaintiff’s had asserted their rights over the mark “*DOMINICK*”, as it was previously adopted by them as also citing the cases of *Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr.  v. Ms Dominick Pizza & Anr.  and Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr.  v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.,* wherein the Court recognized the plaintiff’s rights over the said mark.  

The plaintiff submitted that the Defendant No.s 1 to 15 had unlawfully adopted a phonetically, visually and deceptively similar mark to those of the Plaintiffs and with the dishonest intent of deceiving consumers and diverting the Plaintiff’s customers to their establishments.  

## ***Court’s Observations*** 

The Court observed that the marks of the Defendants are deceptively similar and phonetically identical to Plaintiff No. 1 trade name “Dominick’s Pizza”. The defendants have wholly copied the plaintiff’s mark “Dominik” or have removed the letter “K” from the plaintiff’s mark or have made minor alterations such as addition or subtraction of the letter “i” or “s” or replacement of letter “o” with “a”, so as to come close to the plaintiffs’ trademarks and ride upon their goodwill. 

Moreover, the impugned marks were also deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered mark, and consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection were likely to associate the defendant’s products with that of the plaintiffs. Therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for the defendants to adopt impugned marks that are similar to those of the plaintiffs. Since both parties operate in the same sector (edible goods), the likelihood of confusion is significantly higher, and the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower due to potential health implications for consumers. 

Furthermore, the plaintiffs are *prima facie*entitled to protection as the balance of convenience lies in their favour and therefore, the plaintiff would incur irreparable loss and injury if an interim injunction were not granted to them. Accordingly, the defendant no’s 1 to 15 were restrained from advertising or selling any product packaging, menu cards and advertising material, labels, stationery articles, website or any other documentation displaying in any manner whatsoever, the marks or trade names of the Plaintiffs. Additionally, Zomato and Swiggy were also directed to takedown the impugned listings from their applications, websites or any other platforms.  

## ***Conclusion *** 

The Delhi High Court’s order in *Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.* reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting well-known trademarks from dilution, misappropriation, and consumer confusion, especially in sectors like food services where public health and brand trust are critically linked. By recognizing the deceptive similarity in both appearance and phonetics, and by acknowledging the long-standing commercial reputation of Domino’s, the Court sent a strong message against opportunistic infringement. This decision emphasizes that online platforms like Zomato and Swiggy, while not infringers themselves, are obligated to act on court orders or lawful takedown notices under the IT Act, 2000. The case further reinforces the robust protection afforded to well-known trademarks under Indian law. 

For further details, contact us at: [**contact@indialaw.in**](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)** ** 

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/intellectual-property-rights/dominos-wins-trademark-case//pdf/)

[Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/intellectual-property-rights/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---