Use of deceptively similar pizza marks to exploit a well-known brand constitutes trademark infringement.

Plaintiff No. 1 owns and manages intellectual property of the Domino’s Pizza group, including its registered “Domino’s Pizza” mark; Plaintiff No. 2 operates the group’s Indian franchises and assists in protecting its intellectual property in India.

The plaintiffs sued seven businesses for using names including “Domin’d Pizza”, “Domind’s Pizza” and “Domzz Pizza”, seeking, among other relief, permanent injunctions and damages.

The Court had granted interim injunctive relief against certain defendants and ordered takedowns of specified online listings.

Defendants 1–4 later settled with the plaintiffs, and the suit was decreed against them; defendants 5–7 did not appear, were proceeded against ex parte, and their right to file a written statement had been closed.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against defendants 5–7 and did not press their claims for damages and costs.

1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment against defendants 5–7 for use of marks allegedly infringing or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered marks.

2. Whether permanent injunctive relief should issue against defendants 5–7 in the circumstances, including their non-appearance and the evidence of their business operations.

The application invoked 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.

The Court applied the principle that deceptive use of a mark similar to a well-known mark for identical goods or services may amount to infringement and may mislead consumers as to affiliation; in the context of food products and eateries, a higher degree of care and caution is warranted.

It relied on Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. Ms. Dominick Pizza & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6135, and Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. Ms. Domino Pizza & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2593, as earlier decisions concerning the plaintiffs’ rights and the deceptive use of similar marks.

The Court found that defendants 5–7 had not appeared despite service and had offered no justification for their conduct.

The online listings, similar names and shared FSSAI registration details supported the plaintiffs’ case that defendants 5 and 6 were operated by the same individual; the proprietor of defendant 7 was also identified as that individual.

The Court considered the use of similar marks for pizza and online delivery likely to mislead consumers into believing there was an affiliation with the plaintiffs, and found that such use threatened the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.

In these circumstances, it found no impediment to summary judgment.

The plaintiffs did not press damages or costs; the decree sheet was directed to be drawn up, and the suit and pending applications were disposed of.