This case analysis examines the key elements and legal issues presented in
the case of Infiniti Retail Limited v. Croma Through its Proprietor & Ors. The
case involves a trademark infringement dispute between the plaintiff, Infiniti
Retail Limited, and the defendant, Croma. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendant's use of the mark "CROMA" on its website infringes upon the
plaintiff's trademark rights and constitutes passing off. The plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs.
The main issues in this case are as follows:
- Whether the defendant's use of the mark "CROMA" on its website
constitutes trademark infringement and passing off?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining
the defendant from using the mark "CROMA"?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to other ancillary reliefs?
To determine the resolution of the issues, the following legal principles are
The plaintiff must establish that it has a valid and subsisting trademark in the
mark "CROMA" and that the defendant's use of a similar mark creates a likelihood
of confusion among consumers.
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's use of the mark "CROMA"
misleads the public into believing a connection between the defendant's
goods/services and the plaintiff's business, causing damage to the plaintiff's
goodwill and reputation.
If trademark infringement and passing off are proven, the court may grant a
permanent injunction to prevent further unauthorized use of the plaintiff's mark
by the defendant.
The plaintiff may be entitled to other remedies such as damages, account of
profits, and delivery up or destruction of infringing goods.
Validity of the plaintiff's trademark:
The plaintiff has provided evidence of its registration and continuous use of
the mark "CROMA" in various classes. The plaintiff has also established its
goodwill and reputation associated with the mark through sales figures,
marketing expenses, and social media presence. The mark has been declared a
well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Based on this evidence,
the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of trademark validity.
Likelihood of confusion and passing off:
The plaintiff must show that the defendant's use of the mark "CROMA" on its
website is likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe
there is an association between the defendant's goods/services and the
plaintiff's business. The defendant's registration of the domain name "www.croma.in"
and its use of the plaintiff's well-known mark support the plaintiff's claim of
likelihood of confusion and passing off.
Failure to enter appearance and file a written statement:
Despite being served, the defendant failed to appear or file a written
statement. The court provided ample opportunity for the defendant to defend the
case, and the maximum time allowed for filing a written statement has already
passed. As a result, the defendant has no defense to put forth on the merits of
Based on the analysis of the issues and applicable rules, it is evident that the
plaintiff has a strong case of trademark infringement and passing off against
the defendant. The defendant's use of the mark "CROMA" on its website creates a
likelihood of confusion and misleads the public about its association with the
plaintiff. Therefore, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
using the mark "CROMA" is warranted. The plaintiff may also be entitled to
damages resulting from the defendant's infringing activities. In trademark
infringement cases, damages can be calculated based on the plaintiff's actual
damages or the defendant's profits derived from the infringing use, among other
The plaintiff should gather evidence of the harm caused by the defendant's
infringement, such as lost sales, damage to reputation, or customer confusion.
This evidence can support a claim for compensatory damages, which aim to restore
the plaintiff to the position they would have been in if the infringement had
Additionally, the plaintiff may seek an accounting of the defendant's profits
resulting from the infringement. This can be done by demonstrating that the
defendant has profited from the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's mark and
providing evidence to support the calculation of those profits.
In some cases, the plaintiff may also be eligible for statutory damages.
Statutory damages are a predetermined amount set by law, typically available
when actual damages are difficult to prove. However, the availability and amount
of statutory damages may vary depending on the jurisdiction and specific
circumstances of the case.
In conclusion, based on the strong case of trademark infringement and passing
off, the plaintiff should consider seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the
defendant from using the mark "CROMA." Additionally, the plaintiff should gather
evidence of the damages suffered as a result of the infringement and may be
entitled to compensatory damages, an accounting of the defendant's profits, or
even statutory damages.