Skip to main content

FEATURED POST

IP UNFOLD MONTHLY IP INFO-APRIL, 2025

1. Viva Holdings, along with its 37 subsidiaries, has signed the Ecommerce MOU to strengthen protection of its digital content and retail products against piracy. IPOPHL sees this as a major move encouraging more creatives to protect their IP rights. Viva emphasized that piracy threatens a large portion of its revenue, and stronger collaboration with platforms is crucial for sustaining the creative industry.   2. The USPTO has granted a patent to Ramper, a Web3 startup under Vietnam's Ninety Eight, for its social login feature that simplifies access to Web3 apps using platforms like Google and Facebook. This innovation addresses accessibility barriers in Web3 and signals strong progress for Vietnam’s blockchain sector. The patent also highlights Vietnamese startups’ growing global ambitions in the tech space.   3. The Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled that while copyright is relationship property under the PRA, Sirpa Alalääkkölä retains sole ownership and control of her artwo...

Trademark Infringement Case: Domino's IP Holder LLC v. MS Dominick Pizza

                                   



Trademark Infringement Case: Domino's IP Holder LLC v. MS Dominick Pizza

 

Introduction

The case of  Domino's IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. MS Dominick Pizza & Anr. deals with the issue of trademark infringement and passing off. In this case, Domino’s Pizza and its subsidiaries accused MS Dominick Pizza of using a similar name and logo to their famous brand, causing confusion among customers and violating trademark laws.

 

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case, Domino’s IP Holder LLC and Domino's Pizza International Franchising Inc., are the owners of the well-known "Domino's Pizza" trademark. Domino’s operates thousands of stores worldwide, including in India since 1996, through a franchise agreement with Jubilant FoodWorks Limited.

On the other side, the defendants, MS Dominick Pizza, started offering pizza and fast food services using the name "Dominick Pizza" and a logo that closely resembled Domino’s. The plaintiffs argued that this was an attempt to confuse consumers by using a name, logo, and trademarks that were very similar to Domino’s, including terms like "Cheese Burst" and "Pasta Italiano," which were registered by Domino’s.

 

Legal Issues

The primary legal question was whether the defendants had violated the plaintiffs' trademark rights and engaged in passing off. Passing off occurs when a business misrepresents its goods or services to appear as if they belong to another brand. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ use of a similar name and logo could mislead customers into thinking they were associated with Domino’s, which is a violation of trademark laws under the Trade Marks Act of 1999.

 

Legal Analysis

To prove trademark infringement, the plaintiffs relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects against the unauthorized use of a registered trademark. The Delhi high court looked at the similarities between the two logos and names. It found that "Domino’s Pizza" and "Dominick’s Pizza" were very similar, both in appearance and sound, which could lead customers to confuse the two brands.

 

The Delhi high court applied the "Pianotist test," which helps to determine if a trademark is deceptively similar. According to this test, if the overall impression created by two marks is similar, it can lead to confusion. In this case, the Delhi high court found that the defendants’ name and logo were indeed deceptive.

The Delhi high court also referred to the case Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia , which held that using a name that closely resembles a well-known brand can be considered infringement. Based on this, the delhi high court concluded that the defendants were guilty of passing off their services as those of the plaintiffs.

 

Court’s Ruling

The Delhi high court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them an interim injunction, meaning the defendants were immediately prohibited from using the name "Dominick Pizza" or any similar trademarks. The delhi high court also ordered the defendants to stop using the disputed logos and provided the plaintiffs with other legal remedies, including damages and an account of the profits made by the defendants from their infringing activities.

 

Conclusion

The case of  Domino's IP Holder LLC v. MS Dominick Pizza  emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property and the consequences of using a name or logo that is too similar to an established brand. Businesses must be unique and avoid adopting names that could be confused with others, as doing so can lead to costly legal issues. This case serves as a reminder that protecting your brand and trademarks is crucial, and copying or imitating another company’s identity can result in serious losses.

 

Takeaway:

Always choose a unique name and logo for your business. Copying or using a name too similar to an established brand can lead to trademark infringement and legal problems, which could be very expensive for your business.