Delhi High Court: The instant suit concerned infringement and passing off of plaintiff’s registered trade marks CROMA, 
, INFINITI RETAIL, 
and their formative variants, by Defendants 1 to 4. Sanjeev Narula, J.*, held that plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction and further directed Defendants 5 to 7 to permanently block access to the impugned websites namely, www.croma-share.com, www.croma-2.com and www.croma-1.com.
Background
Plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., and a part of the TATA Group, owned and managed a nation-wide retail chain, under ‘CROMA’ marks. It offered a wide range of electronics, consumer products, household and kitchen appliances, mobile phones, computers, audio and video products, cameras, grooming and wellness products etc. at more than 260 stores spread across India and through their website www.croma.com. The mark 
was declared as a well-known trade mark by the Trade Marks Registry on 24-02-2020.
Defendants 1 to 4 were owners of domain names/websites www.croma-share.com, www.croma-2.com, www.croma-1.com, and www.croma-3.com, respectively. In November 2022, upon receipt of several complaints, plaintiff discovered that Defendants 1 to 4 were operating the impugned websites for defrauding people by taking money under the pretext of recruiting them for part-time jobs with Croma/ Infiniti Retail Ltd., using the mark ‘CROMA’. The job process required the customers to pay an increasing amount of money for each subsequent level, from Rs 180 to Rs 42,000. The modus operandi of Defendants 1 to 3 was identical. When consumers asked for proof of authenticity, Defendants 1 to 4 supplied false and fabricated employee IDs, corporate registration in Belize, communications bearing plaintiff’s letterheads purportedly signed by plaintiff’s CEO. On 05-12-2022, while issuing summons, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued whereby Defendants 1 to 4 were restrained from infringing plaintiff’s ‘CROMA’ marks.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court took note of the following extracts from the impugned websites, which were identically designed:
The Court opined that it was evident that Defendants 1 to 4 were using plaintiff’s ‘CROMA’ mark to create a misperception of association with plaintiff and through the impugned websites, Defendants 1 to 4 were soliciting personal information and money from consumers. The said defendants approached an unsuspecting consumer with a lucrative job offer, requiring them to purchase goods from the impugned websites with a promise to return the amount with an added component of commission. As the impugned domain names wholly incorporated plaintiff’s ‘CROMA’ mark, the public, under the mistaken belief that they were procuring a job at plaintiff’s company, fell prey to defendants 1 to 4’s ploy. The likelihood of confusion was evident as defendants 1 to 4’s activities amounted to infringement and passing off of plaintiff’s CROMA marks. Plaintiff’s counsel informed that the impugned websites also emulate the terms and conditions of use, privacy policy etc. displayed on plaintiff’s website www.croma.com, which amounted to passing off of plaintiff’s copyright vested therein.
The Court, after considering plaintiff’s annual revenue and promotional figures and the well-known status of CROMA marks, opined that impugned activities were causing irreparable loss to their goodwill and reputation. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction. The Court opined that no purpose would be served by directing plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence as the pleadings and accompanying documents proved that defendants were misusing plaintiff’s CROMA marks, entitling plaintiff to protection. Therefore, the Court, in exercise of its power under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, held that it was inclined to issue a decree in plaintiff’s favour.
The Court directed Defendants 5 to 7 to permanently block access to the impugned websites namely, www.croma-share.com, www.croma-2.com and www.croma-1.com. The Court further directed Defendants 8 to 16 to permanently suspend and disable the UPI IDs and mobile numbers related to the impugned websites.
[Infiniti Retail Ltd. v. Croma-Share, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 424, decided on 19-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Kruttika Vijay, Sauhard Alung, Advocates
For the Defendants: Manish Mohan, CGSC; Ashwini C., Kishan Rawat, Piyush Singhal, P.S. Sudheer, Anne Mathew, Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Advocates
