- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
The Delhi High Court Directs Swiggy And Zomato To Remove 13 Restaurants Infringing Domino's Trademark From Their Platforms.
The Delhi High Court Directs Swiggy And Zomato To Remove 13 Restaurants Infringing Domino's Trademark From Their Platforms.
The Delhi High Court recently directed food delivery platforms Swiggy and Zomato to delist and take down the links connected with 13 restaurants or eateries that were appropriating the trademark of Domino’s Pizza and selling their food items through the two platforms.
Justice Anish Dayal passed an ex parte ad interim order, directing Swiggy and Zomato to comply within a week and inform defendant restaurants of the court's orders if necessary.
The 13 food outlets, instructed to be removed, were operating under names such as "Dominic Pizza," "Dominek’s Pizza," "Dominek Pizza," "Domics Pizza," "Dominick Pizza," "Domnick Pizza," "Dominic’s Pizza," "Dominics Pizza," "Dominic’s Pizza," "Dominik Pizza," and "Domnik Pizza."
The Court also prohibited these restaurants from utilizing these marks or any other mark resembling Domino’s.
"Considering that the said outlets may be still operating, the said injunction will come into force from 01st June, 2024. These directions are given in order to allow the defendant Nos.1-13 to change their trade names and trademarks as soon as possible but not later than 01st June, 2024,” the Court added.
The Court issued the order following a trademark infringement suit filed by Domino’s.
Domino’s contended that the defendant entities were utilizing marks identical or deceptively similar to Domino’s, and these marks were employed to operate outlets selling similar products, such as Pizzas, etc., on Swiggy and Zomato.
It was also brought to the Court's attention that several cases of customer confusion have emerged, where individuals ordered food items under the mistaken belief that the defendants' outlets were affiliated with Domino’s.
After reviewing the case, the Court determined that Domino’s has presented sufficient grounds for an ex parte ad interim order.
Consequently, the Court issued the takedown orders.



