The Apogee
The Apogee
  • Home
  • From Courts
  • Global
  • Technology
  • Business
  • Law
  • Judgements
    • High Court
    • Supreme Court
  • Achievers
  • Video
  • More
    • Interviews
    • Opinion/Features
    • Research
    • Science
    • Environs
    • Health
  • test-series
  1. Home
  2. From Courts
  3. Delhi HC restrains food outlets from using Domino’s trademark
 Delhi HC restrains food outlets from using Domino’s trademark
From Courts Trending

Delhi HC restrains food outlets from using Domino’s trademark

by Newsdesk April 13, 2024

AA

New Delhi, April 13 (IANS) In a trademark infringement case by Domino’s Pizza, the Delhi High Court has issued an injunction restraining eight food outlets in the national capital from using marks closely resembling Domino’s trademarks.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed food delivery platforms Zomato and Swiggy to remove the outlets from their platforms.

“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 court noted.

Domino’s Pizza alleged that these outlets were operating under names that were identical or deceptively similar to its trademarks, exploiting the similarity to gain visibility on online delivery platforms.

The court found that the use of these marks was not only visually and phonetically similar but also structurally akin to Domino’s registered trademarks.

Justice Narula said that the potential for misrepresentation in the food industry, where products are widely marketed and consumed across diverse demographics, is significant.

Therefore, the court applied a stringent standard in evaluating the impact of such misrepresentation on public perception and the integrity of Domino’s brand identity.

“… it is evident that the actions of defendants constitute a clear infringement of the Plaintiffs’ statutory rights under Section 29 of the Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs are justifiably entitled to seek an injunction to restrain these defendants from continuing such infringing activities,” the court noted.

It further observed: “In case the injunction is not granted, plaintiffs stand to suffer irreparable harm, as the continued use of the impugned marks by defendants would further damage the reputation of their brand and market presence.”

Previous post
Next post

Latest Post

From Courts

Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court quashes false rape and dowry case against would be husband

May 13, 2024
From Courts

SC asks Patanjali to place on record IMA chief’s interview terming apex court observations as ‘unfortunate’

April 30, 2024
From Courts

Delhi HC restrains Ashneer Grover from creating third party rights in BharatPe shares

April 30, 2024
Global

AstraZeneca admits Covishield jab raises TTS risk. Should you be worried?

April 30, 2024
Copyright © 2026 Qoxag. All Right Reserved.
Go to mobile version