The restaurant industry has undergone a revolution thanks to the quick expansion of online food delivery services, but it has also opened up new channels for consumer fraud and trademark infringement. Important concerns about brand protection in the online marketplace are brought to light by the Delhi High Court's recent ruling in Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors, which was delivered on March 12, 2025. This case serves as an example of how well-known trademark owners can ask the court to step in and defend their intellectual property rights from infringers who use internet platforms to trick customers. The ruling brings up significant issues regarding the evolving field of brand protection in India's developing digital economy as well as the liability of intermediary platforms like Zomato and Swiggy in enabling trademark violations.
Legal Framework and Key Provisions
The case mainly concerns trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. By forbidding the unlawful use of identical or confusingly similar marks in connection with comparable goods or services, Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act offers registered trademark owners complete protection. According to the clause, using an identical or confusingly similar mark in the course of business by someone who is not the trademark's owner constitutes infringement of a registered trademark.
The common law doctrine of passing off, which safeguards unregistered trademarks and trade names that have gained goodwill and reputation in the marketplace, is also included in the legal framework. In situations involving historical brand names that may not be registered at the moment but have gained consumer recognition, this doctrine is especially pertinent.
Furthermore, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which includes provisions for expedited trademark matter resolution and pre-institution mediation under Section 12A, regulates the procedural aspects of commercial disputes. Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permit courts to issue temporary injunctions to stop irreversible harm while awaiting final adjudication, are also taken into consideration in this case.
Analysis of the Domino's Case
The Delhi High Court's ruling in this case offers a convincing examination of contemporary trends in trademark infringement. The international pizza chain Domino's IP Holder LLC sued several defendants who were running eateries using names that were phonologically and aesthetically similar to their registered trademarks and previous trade names.
The plaintiffs used a number of important arguments to support their position. First, they used "Dominick's Pizza" from 1960 to 1965 before switching to "Domino's Pizza" to show their broad rights in the "Domino's" trademark family. Given that the defendants specifically targeted this earlier name variant, this historical usage assumes significance. With more than 21,000 locations across 90 countries and $18.9 billion in global retail sales, the court acknowledged that Domino's has established significant goodwill throughout the world.
A sophisticated pattern of trademark abuse was exposed by the defendants' actions. They purposefully decided to use misleadingly similar names mainly on online platforms rather than using these infringing names in physical locations where detection would be simpler. Names like "Dominic Pizza" and "Dominos Pizza," which are phonetically identical or strikingly similar to Domino's registered trademarks and previous trade names, were used by the defendants.
The court's analysis made clear how deliberate this infringement was. Knowing that their listings would show up next to or in place of actual Domino's restaurants when customers typed "DOM," "DOMI," or "DOMIN" into search bars, the defendants were taking advantage of search algorithms on food delivery platforms. Customers who might be less tech-savvy or have language barriers were specifically targeted by this practice, which could have given them the impression that they were placing an order from the well-known Domino's brand.
Platform Liability and Intermediary Responsibility
The fact that Zomato and Swiggy are named as defendants in this case is noteworthy because it represents a significant advancement in platform liability for trademark infringement. By prohibiting these platforms from listing the restaurants that violate trademarks, the court sets a precedent for holding middle-tier platforms responsible for enabling trademark infringement.
The ruling acknowledges that the effectiveness of contemporary trademark infringement frequently depends on digital platforms. Platforms can unintentionally become facilitators of intellectual property violations, as demonstrated by the defendants' strategy of using legal business names offline and using infringing names online. The court's order to remove the contested restaurants from the list shows that it recognizes that platforms are responsible for more than just listing services.
This strategy is in line with changing global norms for platform liability, where judges are increasingly holding middlemen responsible for content that encourages unlawful activity. The ruling, however, also calls into question whether automated systems for identifying possible trademark conflicts should be required and how much due diligence platforms should perform before permitting restaurant.
Interim Relief and Judicial Approach
The judiciary's recognition of the urgency in addressing digital trademark infringement is demonstrated by the court's decision to grant ex-parte interim relief. A number of significant judicial factors are reflected in Justice Mini Pushkarna's order providing comprehensive injunctive relief.
For interim injunctions, the court used the conventional three-pronged test: balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and prima facie case. Domino's numerous trademark registrations, historical use, and significant goodwill established the prima facie case. The risk of consumer confusion and brand dilution in a fiercely competitive market was clear evidence of irreparable harm. Convenience weighed in favour of the well-known brand owner over companies that seemed to be purposefully using confusing marks.
As the injunction prohibits not only direct infringement but also actions that might result in "confusion or deception leading to passing off" or "dilution or tarnishment," it demonstrates the court's extensive knowledge of contemporary trademark protection standards. This broad approach acknowledges that, in the digital age, trademark damage can arise from a variety of subtle mechanisms other than direct copying.
Practical Implications for the Industry
For many parties involved in India's digital economy, this ruling has broad ramifications. For well-known brands, it emphasises how crucial it is to keep a close eye on online platforms and have quick legal recourse for digital infringement. The case shows that courts are ready to take decisive action against sophisticated infringement schemes that take advantage of technology platforms.
The ruling lays out precise guidelines for online meal delivery services' responsibilities in stopping trademark infringement. Platforms might have to put in place stronger trademark conflict detection and verification systems. According to the ruling, platforms cannot stand by and allow content that might violate well-established trademark rights.
The case serves as a cautionary tale for entrepreneurs and new companies about the dangers of choosing names that might be interpreted as being similar to well-known brands, even if that similarity seems accidental. The ruling highlights that names that might mislead consumers or unfairly profit from established goodwill are also protected by trademark law, in addition to exact copies.
The ruling also emphasizes the significance of thorough trademark strategies that take into account both historical brand variations that might still be recognized by consumers as well as current brand names. Businesses should make sure that all of the important brand variations they have used over the years are sufficiently protected in their trademark portfolios.
Emerging Trends and Policy Consideration
This case exemplifies more general patterns in the evolution of trademark law to accommodate online sales. More complex legal responses are needed to keep up with the growing sophistication of infringement schemes. The defendants' tactic of targeting particular consumer demographics and abusing search algorithms shows how conventional trademark concepts need to change to reflect contemporary business realities.
Important policy concerns regarding striking a balance between preserving well-known brands and promoting competition in online markets are also brought up by judgment. Although it is crucial to avoid consumer confusion, excessively broad trademark protection may hinder innovation and fair competition in the food service sector.
The case raises the need for more precise legal frameworks that define platform obligations in trademark cases. To handle the unique issues presented by intermediary platforms that support both legal commerce and possible infringement, existing laws might need to be updated.
Conclusion
In terms of digital platform liability and contemporary infringement patterns, the Delhi High Court's ruling in Dominos IP Holder LLC v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors marks a substantial advancement in Indian trademark jurisprudence. The ruling shows that the court has acknowledged the complexity of modern trademark infringement and the need for all-encompassing remedies that target both direct violators and enabling platforms.
By demonstrating that well-established trademark rights apply to online marketplaces and that platforms are accountable for content that encourages infringement, the case sets significant precedents for brand protection in the digital age. This ruling emphasises the significance of strong trademark strategies and compliance systems for companies functioning in India's quickly expanding digital economy.
The ruling is a reflection of the courts' recognition that, in order to effectively protect trademarks in the contemporary era, technological realities must be accommodated while upholding the core values of fair competition and consumer protection. This case will probably be used as a model for striking a balance between platform innovation, market competition, and brand protection as digital commerce develops further.
The ruling also emphasises how important it is that laws and regulations continue to clarify platform obligations in intellectual property cases. Cases like this offer helpful direction for developing balanced strategies that uphold legal rights while encouraging innovation and competition as India develops its framework for the digital economy.
References
- Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr v. M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors, CS(COMM) 231/2025, Delhi High Court (March 12, 2025).
- Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 29.
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 12A.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2.
- Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382.
- Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529.
- Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Commentary and Case Law, Universal Law Publishing.
- Intellectual Property Rights and Food Industry in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 28 (2023).
- Platform Liability in Digital India: Emerging Trends in IP Protection, NUJS Law Review, Vol. 16 (2024).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
