By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Delhi High Court Orders Food Outlets to Cease Using ‘Domino’ Marks, Removes Them from Zomato and Swiggy
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > High Court > Delhi High Court Orders Food Outlets to Cease Using ‘Domino’ Marks, Removes Them from Zomato and Swiggy
High CourtNews

Delhi High Court Orders Food Outlets to Cease Using ‘Domino’ Marks, Removes Them from Zomato and Swiggy

Apni Law
Last updated: March 26, 2025 10:25 am
Apni Law
1 year ago
Share
Delhi High Court Orders Food Outlets to Cease Using 'Domino' Marks, Removes Them from Zomato and Swiggy
Delhi High Court Orders Food Outlets to Cease Using 'Domino' Marks, Removes Them from Zomato and Swiggy
SHARE

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Domino’s Pizza in a trademark infringement case. This is against eight food outlets. The court has restrained these outlets from using marks such as ‘Domino’, ‘Domino’s’, ‘Dominon’,. Similar variations, citing unauthorized adoption of trade names identical or deceptively similar to Domino’s Pizza’s trademarks.

Justice Sanjeev Narula issued an order directing popular food delivery platforms, Zomato and Swiggy. This is to remove the concerned outlets from their platforms. Thus, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.

Domino’s Pizza alleged that the unauthorized use of its marks by the food outlets was causing confusion among consumers. Moreover, unfairly leveraging the popularity of the Domino’s brand. The court agreed, noting that the impugned marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to Domino’s registered trademarks.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the significant consumer impact of misrepresentation in the food industry. Especially given the widespread marketing and consumption of food products. It stressed the need for stringent measures to preserve the integrity of Domino’s brand identity. Additionally, prevent consumer confusion.

Conclusion

The legal counsel representing Domino’s Pizza argued convincingly, leading to a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs. The court’s decision sets a precedent for robust trademark protection in India and underscores the importance of upholding intellectual property rights in the digital age.

Domino’s Pizza is a global pizza chain known for its fast delivery and variety of flavors. Its trademark includes the iconic red and blue logo with three dots. The brand protects its name, logo, and slogans. Trademark laws prevent unauthorized use, ensuring brand identity and customer trust worldwide.

A trademark is a legal protection for a brand’s name, logo, or slogan. It distinguishes businesses and prevents unauthorized use. Registered trademarks offer exclusive rights and build brand identity. Companies use them to protect reputation and consumer trust. Trademark laws ensure fair competition and prevent confusion in the marketplace.

Case Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR v. MS DOMINO PIZZA & ORS.

You Might Also Like

Supreme Court Issues Notice In West Bengal’s Challenge Over Governor’s Withholding Of Bill Assent

Mere Loan Recovery not Amount to Abetment to Suicide: Bombay HC

FAMCI Urges Supreme Court For Uniform Safety Guidelines After RG Kar Hospital Tragedy

Supreme Court Upholds NEET-UG Exam Despite Paper Leak Allegations

Consent For Physical Relations Doesn’t Include Sharing Private Videos: Delhi HC

TAGGED:Delhi High CourtDomino's Pizzafood outletslegal actionSwiggytrademark infringementtrademark protectionZomato
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article NDPS Act Search & Seizure Provisions in Landmark Judgment NDPS Act Search & Seizure Provisions in Landmark Judgment
Next Article Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 28 CrPC: Sentences High Courts & Sessions Judges Can Pass – Code of Criminal Procedure
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
NDPS Act
High CourtNewsTelangana High Court

Co-accused Cannot be Convicted Based On Suspicion Or Assumption Without Proof: Telangana HC On NDPS Act

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
4 months ago
Children’s Court Must Conduct Inquiry Even If Juvenile Justice Board Orders Trial as Adult: Kerala HC
Delhi High Court Transfers Investigation Of Faizan’s Death To CBI
Right to Voluntarily Close Business Under Article 19(1)(g): SC
Intact Hymen Doesn’t Rule Out Penetrative Sexual Assault: Kerala HC
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Who Is Eligible for Free Legal Aid Under the Legal Services Authorities Act? (Section 12)

Calcutta High Court Rules Section 354A IPC Cannot Be Applied Against Women

Calcutta HC Takes Up Pleas for Independent Probe in Law College Rape Case Amid SIT Investigation

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?