SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 14107

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MS DOMINO PIZZA & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 303/2024



Advocates:
IMON ROY

The court established that the use of deceptively similar trademarks constitutes infringement and passing off, justifying an injunction to prevent consumer confusion and protect brand reputation.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29 - Permanent injunction sought against infringement and passing off of trademarks - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are using deceptively similar marks causing confusion and financial loss - Plaintiffs have established prior use and goodwill in the mark "Domino's" since 1965 - Court finds prima facie case for infringement and passing off, granting injunction to prevent irreparable harm. (Paras 16.1, 19, 20)

(B) Injunction - The court emphasizes the need for immediate relief to prevent ongoing damage to brand reputation and consumer trust, highlighting the balance of convenience in favor of the Plaintiffs. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are operating under similar trade names, misleading consumers and causing confusion, resulting in financial losses. Plaintiffs have been vigilant in protecting their trademarks and have a significant market presence in India. (Paras 16.1, 16.6)

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the Defendants' actions constitute trademark infringement and passing off, warranting an injunction to protect the Plaintiffs' rights and prevent further damage. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: The main issues include the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the use of similar marks and the necessity of an injunction to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs' brand. (Paras 19, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Defendants' use of similar marks is likely to cause confusion and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to prevent further infringement and protect their goodwill. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Defendants restrained from using similar marks and ordered to remove listings from online platforms.

ORDER

% 09.04.2024 I.A. 8135/2024 (Seeking exemption from advance service of the Defendants)

1. The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants No. 1 to 8 are perpetrating fraud on the general public by creating a false association with the Plaintiffs, resulting in grave financial losses to the Plaintiffs. Considering the nature of controversy involved in the present suit, as well as the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, exemption from effecting advance service on Defendants No. 1 to 8 is allowed.

2. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 8134/2024 (Seeking Leave to the file additional documents)

3. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

CS(COMM) 303/2024 Page 2 of 12

4. If Plaintiffs wish to file additional documents at a later stage, they shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the said Act.

5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 8136/2024 (Seeking exemption)

6. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

7. The Plaintiffs shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 8133/2024 (Seeking Discovery)

9. Issue notice, upon filing of process fee, by all permissible modes, returnable on the next date of hearing. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks from date of service. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

10. Re-notify on 11th September, 2024.

CS(COMM) 303/2024

11. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

12. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement(s), the Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

CS(COMM) 303/2024 Page 3 of 12

13. Liberty is given to the Plaintiffs to file replication(s) within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication(s), if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, affidavit(s) of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiffs, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

14. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 11th July,

2024. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

15. List before Court for framing of issues thereafter.

I.A. 8132/2024(under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)

16. Mr. Pravin Anand, counsel for Plaintiffs, has presented the following facts and contentions:

16.1. The present suit is filed seeking, inter alia, permanent injunction restraining infringement of Plaintiffs’ trademarks “Domino’s Pizza”,

“ ” and “ ”, as well as passing off, etc.

16.2. Plaintiff No. 1- Domino’s IP Holder LLC, belonging to the Domino’s pizza group of companies, owns and manages certain intellectual property under the ultimate ownership of Domino’s Pizza, LLC. Plaintiff No. 2- Jubilant FoodWorks Limited has exclusive rights to operate Domino’s franchises in India, operating as a single economic entity with Plaintiff No. 1 for the purpose of protecting intellectual property rights and business under the same in India.

CS(COMM) 303/2024 Page 4 of 12 16.3. Plaintiffs are the first and prior adopter of the mark “Domino’s” since the year 1965, and now conduct operations in more than 90 countries, with over 20,500 stores. The Plaintiffs’ initial adoption of the said mark is arbitrary, as it has no meaning or significance in relation to pizza or fast- food restaurants, and thus it is distinctive and exclusively associated with the Plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top