Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v. Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors

CS(COMM) 952/2025

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 952/2025
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr vs Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 498/2020

Microsoft CorporationvsPcpatchers Technology Private Limited

In a significant ruling concerning brand protection, the Delhi High Court directed various international Domain Name Registrars (DNRs) to comply with an existing injunction. Microsoft Corporation sought permanent relief against entities allegedly violating its trademarks and copyrights through fraudulent activities using 'MICROSOFT' in domain names. The court granted a final opportunity for DNRs to provide necessary WHOIS details and suspend the infringing domains, warning that failure to comply within one week would lead to legal action by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

trademarkW.P.(IPD)No.37 of 2024

P.PandianvsThe Registrar of Trademarks

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'THILTH'. The core issue was that despite the mark expiring, the petitioner could not renew it because the Registry failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the Registrar's duty to inform proprietors about approaching expiration, thereby enabling timely renewal or restoration.

trademarkW.P.No.2239 of 2014

M/s. M.S.Milk ProductvsThe Deputy Registrar of Trademarks Intellectual Property Building, et al.

M/s. M.S. Milk Product filed a Writ Petition seeking an order to expedite the registration process for two trademark applications in Class 29. However, during the hearing before the Madras High Court, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that both trademark applications had already been withdrawn. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2023

Bundl Technologies Private LimitedvsPankaj Garg & Anr.

Bundl Technologies Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY', initiated proceedings against Pankaj Garg & Anr. alleging dishonest adoption of the mark. The Delhi High Court issued directions to both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the case, including filing replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. The court also set dates for the completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar and subsequent hearing before the Court.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1141/2025

Kbm Foods Private LimitedvsAjay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call