Delhi High Court - Orders
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr vs Hominos Pizza on 22 July, 2020
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM)No.249/2020 & I.A.No.5424/2020
DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. ....Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shantanu
Sahay and Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advs.
versus
HOMINOS PIZZA ....Defendant
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 22.07.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. Mr. Pravin Anand, who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs, says that an affidavit dated 18.07.2020 has been filed to demonstrate service on the defendant.
1.1 The aforementioned affidavit is suggestive of the fact that the plaintiffs have, apparently, served the summons via e-mail on the defendant. 1.2 The aforementioned affidavit also points in the direction that the summons were despatched through speed post. The tracking report of the speed post is, however, not on record.
2. At the moment, I am inclined to accept Mr. Anand's submission that service in the matter is complete in view of the fact that an e-mail, in that behalf, has been sent and received by the defendant.
3. The defendant has not entered appearance in the matter.
4. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the fact that the defendant has infringed their registered and well-known trademark "Domino's Pizza" by adopting the trademark "Hominos Pizza" which is phonetically similar.
CS(COMM)No.249/2020 page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified digitally signed byVIPIN KUMAR RAI signing date23.07.2020 18:45
5. The two trademarks, as set-forth in the plaint, are extracted hereafter:
6. Having regard to the fact that the defendant has chosen not to enter appearance, for the moment, I am inclined to grant the relief, as prayed for by the plaintiffs, as, if nothing else, there is a phonetic similarity in the two marks and the defendant is in the same business i.e. preparing and selling pizzas, although, I must say, that the packaging is different.
7. Accordingly, the defendant, its agents and employees are restrained from carrying on their business of preparing and selling pizzas by using the impugned trademark or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark.
8. The plaintiffs will comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within five days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.
9. Renotify the matter on 20.08.2020.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 22, 2020
Aj/KK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
CS(COMM)No.249/2020 page 2 of 2
Signature Not Verified
digitally signed byVIPIN
KUMAR RAI
signing date23.07.2020
18:45