Introduction
In the digital marketplace, trademark infringement is no longer confined to storefront signs, product packaging, or conventional advertising. Online food-delivery platforms have created another point of contact between brands and consumers, where the names displayed in search results and restaurant listings can influence purchasing decisions within seconds. The use of names that closely resemble established brands can therefore raise significant concerns about consumer confusion, brand reputation, and the protection of commercial goodwill.
The Delhi High Court addressed these concerns in Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domin’d Pizza & Ors., decided on October 8, 2026. The dispute involved several businesses using names such as “Domin’d Pizza,” “Domind’s Pizza,” “Domi’d Pizza,” “Dom’d Pizza,” and “Domzz Pizza.” The plaintiffs alleged that these names infringed their registered Domino’s trademarks and could mislead consumers ordering food through online platforms.
While some defendants settled the dispute, defendants 5 to 7 did not appear despite service. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment against these three defendants and permanently restrained them from using the impugned names or other identical or deceptively similar marks amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.
The decision highlights the importance of evaluating trademarks in their actual commercial setting, particularly where similar names are used for identical products and promoted through digital food-delivery channels.
Background of the dispute
The plaintiffs were Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Jubilant FoodWorks Limited. According to the judgment, Domino’s IP Holder LLC owns and manages key intellectual property assets of the Domino’s Pizza group, including its registered “Domino’s Pizza” trademark. Jubilant FoodWorks Limited holds the exclusive right to operate Domino’s franchises in India under a master franchise arrangement and assists in protecting the group’s intellectual property rights in the country.
The suit was brought against businesses operating under names that closely resembled the Domino’s brand. The defendants included “Domin’d Pizza,” “Domi’d Pizza,” “Domind’s Pizza,” and “Domzz Pizza.” The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of these names, delivery-up and destruction of infringing material, directions for the removal of online listings, and monetary relief.
The dispute was not merely about a similarity between names considered in isolation. The businesses were offering pizza and related food services, directly overlapping with the commercial field in which the Domino’s brand operates. Several of the impugned businesses were listed on platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy, making the alleged infringement relevant to consumers searching for food online.
The Court had previously granted interim relief on May 28, 2024, restraining certain defendants from using the impugned marks and directing the removal or suspension of specified listings. Defendants 1 to 4 subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs through mediation, and the matter was decreed against them by an order dated October 29, 2024.
Defendants 5 to 7, however, did not appear despite service. Their right to file a written statement had been closed, and the proceedings against them had continued ex parte. The plaintiffs then sought summary judgment against these defendants.
The central issue: deceptive similarity in a digital marketplace
The principal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment against defendants 5 to 7 in view of the alleged use of deceptively similar marks for pizza-related goods and services.
The Court examined the impugned names in the context of the plaintiffs’ established brand, the nature of the products, and the manner in which consumers encountered the defendants’ businesses. The similarities were not limited to a general resemblance in spelling. The impugned names incorporated variations of the distinctive “Domino’s” brand expression while being used for the same category of food products and services.
The Court observed that the entities using phonetically and deceptively similar names were listed on Zomato and Swiggy. According to the plaintiffs’ pleadings, the platforms’ search-bar prompts could display such listings when users entered the first few letters of the Domino’s brand name, including “DOM,” “DOMI,” or “DOMIN.”
This context was material because a consumer searching for a familiar brand may encounter several similar-looking names before selecting a listing. A consumer who is unfamiliar with English spelling or who relies primarily on the sound or partial appearance of a name may be particularly vulnerable to confusion. The Court considered the possibility that consumers could be misled into believing they were ordering from a genuine Domino’s establishment.
The judgment therefore illustrates why trademark comparison should not be divorced from the circumstances in which a mark is encountered. The relevant commercial setting may include search prompts, restaurant names, online menus, listings, and the speed with which consumers make purchasing decisions.
Online listings and the risk of consumer confusion
A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s consideration of the defendants’ online operations. It noted that the defendants used names resembling the plaintiffs’ trademark on food-delivery platforms and that certain businesses appeared to operate through shared physical or cloud kitchens in Delhi.
The judgment specifically discussed connections between defendants 5 and 6, both of whom shared the same FSSAI registration number and were found to be operated by the same individual. Defendant 7 was listed under a different FSSAI registration number, but the FSSAI database identified the same individual as its proprietor.
These circumstances formed part of the Court’s assessment of the defendants’ business operations. They were relevant to understanding the relationship between the businesses and the use of similar names across different outlets or listings.
The Court also referred to the possibility of consumer confusion arising from the use of deceptively similar names for identical goods and services. In the food sector, such confusion can extend beyond the question of which business receives an order. Consumers may mistakenly associate the quality, service, or reputation of an unfamiliar establishment with the established brand whose name it resembles.
The Court relied on its earlier decisions concerning similar disputes and noted that, where marks relate to food items or eateries, a higher degree of care and caution is required. It also recognized the potential for damage to the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation where a business seeks to benefit from the reputation associated with an established brand.
The judgment is a reminder that a brand’s digital presence is part of its commercial identity. Businesses must be alert not only to physical imitation but also to the use of similar names in online listings and other digital touchpoints.
Summary judgment and the defendants’ non-appearance
The plaintiffs sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a), read with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Defendants 5 to 7 had not appeared despite service. Their right to file a written statement had been closed, and the Court had proceeded ex parte against them. The interim injunction had also been made absolute.
In considering the request for summary judgment, the Court noted that the plaintiffs’ case was supported by an exhibited affidavit and that earlier decisions of the Court had recognized the plaintiffs’ rights in similar trademark disputes. It found that the defendants had no plausible justification for their conduct on the facts presented.
The Court further observed that, given the defendants’ continued non-appearance, there was no prospect of their succeeding in the suit. It concluded that there was no impediment to pronouncing summary judgment.
The procedural posture is important. The decree against defendants 5 to 7 followed their failure to participate in the proceedings and the Court’s assessment of the material before it. The decision should not be interpreted to mean that every allegation of trademark infringement automatically warrants summary judgment. The availability of such relief depends on the governing procedural provisions and the circumstances established in the particular case.
Equally, the judgment demonstrates that failure to participate in litigation can have serious consequences. A defendant who does not appear or put forward a defense may lose the opportunity to contest the allegations and evidence on which the plaintiff relies.
The final relief and its scope
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit against defendants 5 to 7 and permanently restrained them, directly or through persons acting on their behalf, from advertising, selling, offering for sale, marketing, or otherwise using the impugned names “Domin’d Pizza,” “Domind’s Pizza,” “Domzz Pizza,” “Domi’d Pizza,” “Dom’d Pizza,” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks in a manner amounting to infringement.
The restraint extended to relevant commercial material, including products, packaging, menu cards, advertising material, labels, stationery, websites, and other documentation displaying the impugned marks.
The Court recorded that the plaintiffs had given up their claims for damages and costs. Accordingly, the final decree was directed at restraining the infringing use rather than awarding the monetary relief originally claimed.
It is also important to distinguish the relief granted against defendants 5 to 7 from the earlier disposition concerning defendants 1 to 4. The latter had entered into a settlement agreement and the matter against them had already been decreed in 2024. The October 8, 2026 decision addressed the remaining proceedings against defendants 5 to 7.
The order thus provides a permanent injunction against the remaining defendants but should not be described as an award of damages or as a single undifferentiated decree against every defendant in the original suit.
Practical implications for brand owners and businesses
The decision offers several lessons for businesses operating in highly competitive digital markets.
First, brand protection must extend to online platforms. Trademark monitoring should cover food-delivery applications, search results, online menus, websites, and other digital channels where consumers encounter business names.
Second, businesses should assess names in their commercial context. A small change in spelling or punctuation may not remove the risk of infringement when the overall name remains phonetically or deceptively similar to an established trademark and is used for identical goods or services.
Third, platform visibility can amplify confusion. Where similar names appear in search prompts or restaurant listings, consumers may have limited time or information to distinguish the businesses. Brand owners should document potentially confusing listings and preserve relevant evidence when considering enforcement action.
Fourth, businesses must respond to legal proceedings. Ignoring a suit can result in ex parte proceedings and, where the Court is satisfied that the legal requirements are met, summary judgment and permanent injunctive relief.
Finally, enforcement strategy should reflect the relief actually sought and granted. In this case, the plaintiffs gave up damages and costs, while the Court granted a permanent restraint against defendants 5 to 7. The outcome demonstrates the importance of clearly distinguishing injunctive relief from monetary remedies.
Conclusion
In Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/s Domin’d Pizza & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed the use of deceptively similar pizza-brand names in a marketplace where online listings can shape consumer choices. Its assessment considered the similarity of the names, the identical nature of the relevant goods and services, the defendants’ online presence, their business connections, and their failure to appear in the proceedings.
The permanent injunction against defendants 5 to 7 reinforces the importance of protecting registered trademarks from confusingly similar commercial use. It also highlights that the assessment of trademark infringement must take account of the environment in which consumers encounter the mark, including digital food-delivery platforms. For brand owners, the decision underscores the value of active monitoring and timely enforcement. For businesses, it is a caution against adopting names that may cause consumers to associate an unrelated establishment with an established brand. In an increasingly digital marketplace, protecting brand identity requires attention not only to what a name looks like, but also to how it sounds, where it appears, and how consumers are likely to understand it.