Brief Facts
Infiniti Retail Limited filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and tarnishment of its well-known trademark "CROMA." The plaintiff, a subsidiary of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., operates a nationwide retail chain under the "CROMA" brand. It alleged that several defendants were operating fraudulent websites using domain names incorporating "CROMA," misleading consumers and causing reputational harm. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on July 25, 2022, directing domain registrars, telecom service providers, and payment platforms to block and disable infringing domain names, mobile numbers, and payment accounts linked to the fraudulent websites. Over time, additional infringing websites and parties were impleaded in the suit.
Issues
Whether the defendants' use of domain names containing "CROMA" amounts to trademark infringement and passing off.
Whether the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s mark dilutes its goodwill and reputation.
Whether a summary judgment should be granted in favor of the plaintiff due to the defendants' failure to contest the suit.
Submissions of the Parties
The plaintiff argued that it owns over 130 trademark registrations for "CROMA" and its stylized variants, which have been in use since 2005 and declared well-known by the Trade Marks Registrar. The fraudulent websites not only infringed the plaintiff’s trademarks but also misled consumers into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented evidence of substantial financial losses and reputational damage caused by the infringing websites, which were used for deceptive activities, including soliciting payments from unsuspecting consumers. It sought a summary judgment on the grounds that the defendants had failed to file replies despite being served.
The defendants, primarily domain registrants of the infringing websites, failed to contest the suit. However, GoDaddy.com LLC, a domain registrar, opposed the plaintiff’s request for an overarching directive requiring domain registrars to suspend any future infringing domain names upon the plaintiff’s request. It argued that such a request placed an undue burden on domain registrars and lacked judicial oversight.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court analyzed whether a summary judgment was appropriate under Order XIII-A of the CPC, which allows courts to dispose of cases without oral evidence if there is no real prospect of the defendants succeeding. Relying on Rockwool International A/S v. Thermocare Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. MJ Bizcraft, the court held that a summary judgment was justified since the defendants failed to contest the suit, and the plaintiff had provided conclusive evidence of infringement.
The court found that the infringing websites misled consumers and diluted the plaintiff’s trademark. The comparison of domain names revealed that the defendants had merely appended generic words like "wholeseller" or "retail" to "CROMA" to create deceptive domain names. Citing Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., the court reiterated that minor modifications to a well-known trademark do not prevent a finding of deceptive similarity.
While the court upheld the plaintiff’s claim, it agreed with GoDaddy.com LLC that granting an overarching directive to domain registrars without judicial oversight would be excessive. The plaintiff withdrew its request for such relief, allowing the court to proceed with the remaining claims.
Decision of the Judge
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants from using domain names containing "CROMA." It directed domain registrars to transfer the infringing domain names to the plaintiff and ordered telecom service providers to permanently disable associated mobile numbers. Payment platforms and banks were instructed to freeze and transfer funds from accounts linked to the fraudulent activities to the plaintiff. The suit was decreed in the plaintiff’s favor, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Infiniti Retail Limited v. M/s Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Date of Order: 15.02.2025
Case No.: CS (COMM) 490/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1160
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh
No comments:
Post a Comment