The short answer
In Dominous Pizza and others v. Domino's Pizza Inc. (61 DLR 2009 780) Domino's said it had reputation and goodwill in Bangladesh and that the defendants sold pizza under the name "Dominous Pizza", earning substantial profits and causing irreparable loss. It asked for a permanent injunction. According to our source, the court directed a district judge to decide the case promptly.
Case snapshot
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Dominous Pizza and others v. Domino's Pizza Inc. |
| Report | 61 DLR (2009) 780 |
| Court | Not named in the source we used; the court directed a district judge to dispose of the case promptly |
| IP area | Passing off: reputation, misrepresentation, damage to goodwill |
| Relief sought | Permanent injunction against use of "Dominous Pizza" or any confusingly similar mark |
| Result reported | Direction to the district judge to decide the case promptly; the final trial outcome is not given in our source |
Background and facts
Domino's Pizza Inc. said that it had reputation and goodwill in Bangladesh. The defendants produced pizza and related products under the name "Dominous Pizza".
Domino's alleged that the defendants earned substantial profits from this and that it suffered irreparable loss, and it asked for a permanent injunction.
The legal question
Did the defendants pass off their products as those of Domino's by using a name so close to Domino's, so that a permanent injunction should be granted?
The court's reasoning
- Passing off needs three things: reputation or goodwill, misrepresentation or deception, and damage to goodwill (the "classic trinity" from Reckitt & Colman v Borden, used as a guide in Bangladesh commentary).
- A permanent injunction can restrain the defendants and those acting for them from using, selling or marketing goods under the plaintiff's mark or a confusingly similar mark.
- In the reported decision the court directed the district judge to dispose of the case promptly.
Our source gives the facts and the court's direction, not the full reasoning or the final trial result. This is a summary of a reported decision, not of the whole litigation.
Result and outcome
The reported decision pushed the case to a prompt hearing in the district court. The source does not state whether the permanent injunction was finally granted.
Analysis: why this case matters
The case illustrates how a well-known foreign brand can rely on passing off in Bangladesh even when its name is copied only in sound and spelling ("Dominous" for "Domino's").
It also shows the importance of speed: the higher court's direction to decide promptly reflects the harm that continued trading under a copied name can cause.
Practical lessons for brand owners and inventors
- Collect evidence of reputation in Bangladesh (sales, advertising, press, customer awareness).
- Act against copy-names early and ask for an interim injunction.
- Register the mark in Bangladesh and also keep proof for passing off.
- Monitor restaurant and food-service names, where copy-names are common.
Sources and further reading
Legal 500: Injunction as a way to prevent passing off of a trademark (Bangladesh)
Our guide: Trademark infringement and remedies in Bangladesh
The report is cited as 61 DLR (2009) 780. We did not see the judgment, so the court, date and final outcome are only as reported in secondary commentary.
Questions and answers
What was the dispute about?
The name "Dominous Pizza" against Domino's Pizza Inc.
What relief was sought?
A permanent injunction against use of the plaintiff's mark or any confusingly similar mark.
What did the reported decision say?
It directed a district judge to dispose of the case promptly.
Facing a similar dispute?
SUPREMEiP® prepares the evidence and works with local counsel for registration, watch and enforcement.
