Delhi District Court
Infiniti Retail Limited vs M/S Croma Mart And Ors on 12 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 619/2022
In the matter of:
Infiniti Retail Limited
Unit No. 701 and 702, Wing A,
7th Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai - 400069,
Maharashtra, India.
Email: c/o [email protected]
............Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s. Croma Mart
Through its partners
A-08, Huda Market, Sector-32,
Gurugram - 122022, Haryana, India.
Email: [email protected];
[email protected],
Mobile: +91 8527384997
Website: www.cromamart.com
Also At:-
Mr. Rajendra Kumar,
199, K-2 Block, Sangam Vihar,
South Delhi, Delhi.
Also At:-
Myasur, Kasganj Myasur,
Etah, Kanshiram Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-207245, India.
Also at:-
Mr. Rakesh Singh,
Vernaukul, Guntak,
Guhata, Arunachal Pradesh-3456701.
Mobile: +919876543901
e-mail: [email protected]
.....Defendant No.1
CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Digitally
Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.1/20 signed by
lal lal singh
Date:
singh 2025.11.12
16:42:29
+0530
2. GoDaddy.com, LLC
14455 North Hayden Road, Suite 219
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260, USA.
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
.....Defendant No.2
3. Union of India
Through:-
Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road,
New Delhi- 110001.
Email: [email protected]
.....Defendant No.3
4. Union of India
Through:-
Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003.
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
.....Defendant No.4
5. Bharti Airtel Limited
Airtel Centre, Plot No. 16, Udyog Vihar,
Phase - IV, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.
Email: [email protected]
.....Defendant No.5
Date of institution : 10.06.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 09.09.2025
Date of judgment : 12.11.2025
ORDER
1. The plaintiff/applicant has filed the present application under Order XIII- A r/w Section 151 CPC seeking summary judgment against the defendant no.1.
CS (Comm) No. 619/2022Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.2/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:42:37 +0530
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1, from infringing the plaintiff's trademark(s) through use of registered and well-known trademarks CROMA and/or the Croma Logo , on the impugned website www.cromamart.com, passing off the Impugned Website as that of the plaintiff, dilution and tarnishment of the plaintiff's trademark, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages and costs etc.
3. By way of the present application, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment against the defendant no. 1 with respect to infringement of the plaintiff's registered and well-known trademarks CROMA and/or the Croma Logo on the Impugned Website and passing off its goods/services as that of the plaintiff's. It is submitted that this court issued summons in the present suit on 12.09.2022 and, on the basis of facts of the present case, granted an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction against the defendant no.1, restraining them from using the Plaintiff's registered and well - known trademark CROMA and/or the Croma logo and/or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks and/or formative marks in any manner, including the Impugned Website or any other act amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. Further, vide the said order dated 12.09.2022 this court directed defendant nos. 2 to 5 to disclose the details of the defendant no.1. In compliance with the said order, the defendant nos. 2 and 5 had provided the following details of the defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff:-
(a) Mr. Rajendra Kumar, having his place of residence at 199, K-2 Block, Sangam Vihar, South Delhi, Delhi and also at Myasur, Kasganj Myasur, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 207245, India, is the registered owner of the mobile phone number +91 8527384997 mentioned on the Impugned Website www.cromamart.com.CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.3/20 Digitally signed
lal by lal singh Date: 2025.11.12 singh 16:42:44 +0530
(b) Mr. Rakesh Singh, having his place of residence at Vernaukul, Guntak, Guhata, Arunachal Pradesh 3456701 with mobile phone number +919876543901 and e-mail address [email protected] is the registrant of the domain name for the Impugned Website www.cromamart.com.
4. Thereafter, plaintiff/applicant filed an amended memo of parties along with the amended plaint incorporating the details provided by the said defendants, and fresh summons were issued to the defendant no. 1 on January 6, 2023. However, it has not been possible to serve defendant no. 1. It is stated that it was incumbent upon defendant no. 1 to ensure that its contact details are current so that it could be reached out in connection with issues relating to the Impugned Website. The plaintiff/applicant has further submitted that not keeping the email address active indicates that defendant no.1 is intentionally keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. As such, the defendant no. 1 has, therefore, chosen not to participate in the present proceedings and has failed to put forth any defence whatsoever for its mala fide adoption and misuse of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark CROMA. Therefore, since no defence has been put forth, the said defendant cannot succeed under any circumstances and as such it is submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment on this ground alone. Further, in any case, given the nature of the present dispute and the nature of defendant no. 1's infringing activities the said defendant does not have any real prospect of defending the claim made against it in the present suit. Moreover, there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of as against the defendant no. 1 before recording oral evidence.
5. The facts of the present suit are summarized as herein below:-
(a). The plaintiff, Infiniti Retail Limited, is a company duly incorporated in the year 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956. The Plaintiff operates its business under the mark "CROMA" and other stylized variants. Pertinently, CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.4/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:42:50 +0530 the mark "CROMA" has been declared to be well-known by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules vide notification dated February 24, 2020.
(b). The plaintiff is part of one of India's most trusted business houses - TATA Group.
(c). The plaintiff offers a wide range of electronics, consumer products, household appliances and allied goods which include televisions, home appliances, kitchen appliances, phones, computers, audio and video products, cameras, grooming and wellness products, gaming products, accessories etc.
(d). The plaintiff registered its website www.croma.com in 1996 and launched its first CROMA store in the year 2006, which has since grown exponentially.
(e). The plaintiff's goods and services under well known mark CROMA have grown exponentially since its first launch and the plaintiff currently has an established presence across India.
(f). The plaintiff's physical network comprises approximately 355 stores, which has more than doubled since the filing of the present suit.
(g). The plaintiff currently operates stores in the busy airports in Delhi, Mumbai (Terminal 2), Ahmedabad and Hyderabad and has previously also operated stores in the airports at Chennai, Mumbai (Terminal 1) and Bangalore. Thus, the number of consumers who were aware of and availed of the plaintiff's services and products under the mark CROMA through physical stores far exceeds merely the residents of such geographical locations.
(h). Additionally, the plaintiff's products and services under the mark CROMA are also distributed through a wide spread network of distributors appointed by it after a close and careful scrutinization process.
(i). In addition to its physical stores and distribution network, the plaintiff also has a significant e-commerce business under its CROMA brand which CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.5/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:42:55 +0530 services the entire country. The Plaintiff's products under the mark CROMA as well as third party products are first and foremost listed on its own website www.croma.com, sales through which form a significant share of the Plaintiff's business under the CROMA brand.
(j). Thus, the plaintiff's trade CROMA has been used for a long duration since 2006, extensively both through a physical as well as online presence.
(k). In addition, to ensuring ease of access and widespread availability of its products and services, the plaintiff has expended significant money and resources in conceptualizing, branding and promoting its mark CROMA.
(i). The plaintiff spent approximately Rs.35,00,000/- in first conceptualizing the mark CROMA for its business in 2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff has spent approximately Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) since 2006 in designing and adopting CROMA sub-brands and nearly Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) on designing and conceiving new logos for the CROMA brand.
(ii). The plaintiff's goods and services have been promoted and advertised under this CROMA mark and CROMA-formative marks since 2006. Articles pertaining to the Plaintiff's goods and services CROMA mark and CROMA-
formative marks are routinely published and cited in well-established Indian newspapers, magazines and online publications.
(iii). The plaintiff has also spent considerable sums of money on the advertisement and promotion of its business under the CROMA trade mark/ name, from year 2010 to year 2021. As per the plaintiff in the year 2021, it spent Rs.66 crore for promotional expenses.
(l). Additionally, the plaintiff has also actively promoted and advertised its goods and services under the mark CROMA on social media through its Facebook page, Twitter handle, YouTube channel, and its Instagram handle.
(m). As a result of the plaintiff's continuous and active promotion of its goods and services as well as on account of goodwill and reputation earned by the CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.6/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:00 +0530 plaintiff due to its high quality services and products under the CROMA, the plaintiff's revenue have consistently risen from 2007 to 2018. In the year 2007, revenue earned by the plaintiff was 30.2 crore and in the year 2018, the revenue earned through the sale of CROMA branded products and other products through the plaintiff's services under the mark CROMA was Rs.3759/- crore.
(n). From 2007-2019, the plaintiff has won many awards in various categories as detailed in paragraph 9 (n) of the application.
(o). The plaintiff has received widespread exposure and acceptance as a reliable and high quality source of electronic and consumer goods in India.
(p). The Plaintiff's website www.croma.com has noted a progressive rise in traffic over the past few years, from 12,420,747 visitors in 2013 to 9,63,82,224 in the year 2021. Thus, the traffic on the plaintiff's website has increased to a whopping 9,63,82,224 thereby demonstrating its extensive reach and the considerable goodwill and reputation subsisting in the plaintiff's well-known trade mark CROMA in India.
(q). The plaintiff has increased its online presence by reaching out its consumer through social media via popular sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and enjoys a large following on such pages i.e. in the year 2013, number of followers across various social media platforms was 90,114 and in the year 2021 , the said figure was 406681.
(r). The plaintiff is the proprietor of the well-known trade mark CROMA and CROMA formative marks in relation to the wide range of goods and services in which it deals in Classes 9, 11 and 35, as well as several allied and cognate activities.
(s). The plaintiff has obtained registration of approximately 130 CROMA trademarks including CROMA-formative marks, across classes, in relation to a wide range of goods and services as detailed in paragraph no. 9(s) of the present application.
Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 lal lal singh Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.7/20 Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:08 +0530
(t). Owing to long and continuous use of the well known trade mark CROMA coupled with extensive promotional efforts and substantial revenues generated, the plaintiff has acquired immense goodwill and reputation and exercises strong common law rights in the trade mark CROMA in India. (u). In fact, the well-known mark "CROMA" is the sole component of the Plaintiff's website www.croma.com, which has been registered since 1996.
The Plaintiff's website forms a significant part of the business done by the Plaintiff under the mark CROMA. As a result, the Plaintiff is the only entity which is recognized and identified with a mere reference to the mark CROMA. Thus, the Plaintiff exercises exclusive statutory and common law rights in the well-known trade mark CROMA.
(v). In September 2020, the Plaintiff received a customer complaint through e-mail from a customer based in New Delhi regarding the purchase of a counterfeit robotic vacuum cleaner through the e-commerce website www.cromamart.com which the customer mistakenly believed to be the Plaintiff's website. Upon further investigation, the Plaintiff found that not only was the website www.cromamart.com operational, the said website of defendant no.1 was actively offering for sale consumer electronic goods through the website by prominently displaying the Plaintiff's well-known mark, . The defendant No.1's website www.cromamart.com is hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Website" and the screenshot of impugned website is provided in paragraph 9(v) of the application. (w). On receipt of this information, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to defendant no.1 on September 12, 2020, and also informed defendant no.2 about the infringing activities of defendant no.1 and directed them to takedown the infringing domain www.cromamart.com. A few days after the cease and desist notice was sent by the plaintiff, defendant no. 1, in clear acknowledgment of its activities as being infringing and unauthorised took CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.8/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:13 +0530 down the content of the Impugned Website and the Impugned Website was shown to be "Under Maintenance" to users that attempted to access the same.
(x). Thereafter in January 2021, the plaintiff received another customer complaint regarding the infringing activities of defendant no.1 through the Impugned Website. The Plaintiff found that the Impugned Website was once again accessible and that the said website continues to display, offer for sale and sell counterfeit products using the registered trademark CROMA of the Plaintiff without authorisation. Consequently, the plaintiff had sent another cease-and-desist notice to defendant no.1 on January 13, 2021 asking for compliance with its requisitions within five (5) days of receipt of notice of the website and had informed defendant no.2 of the infringing activities of defendant no.1 carried out through the Impugned Website. The Impugned Website was again taken down by the defendant no.1 upon receipt of the cease and desist notice and shown to be "Under Maintenance" and the screenshot of the impugned Website taken on January 17, 2021 also provided in paragraph no. 9 (x) of the present application. (y). In May, 2022, while monitoring the status of the Impugned Website, it came to the Plaintiff's knowledge that the Impugned Website is again operational and is actively offering for sale wide variety of goods through the website by prominently displaying the Plaintiff's well-known mark, CROMA and the screenshot of the impugned website, taken on June 4, 2022 is provided in paragraph No. 9 (y) of the present application.
6. It is stated that moreover, plaintiff has taken appropriate measures to tackle misuse of their trademarks by unrelated third parties including by filing suits for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and copyright which are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and courts of competent jurisdiction and the details of which are given in paragraph No. 10 of the application.
CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Digitally
signed by
Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.9/20 lal lal singh
Date:
singh 2025.11.12
16:43:18
+0530
7. The plaintiff has also filed and relied upon documentary evidence, details of which are given in paragraph No. 11 of the present application.
8. It is stated that defendant no.1's unauthorized used of the plaintiff's well- known trademark CROMA makes its mala fide intention to flagrantly infringe the registered trademarks of the plaintiff and such use is undoubtedly bound to create confusion and may lead the public to believe that defendant no.1's Impugned Website is owned/ operated by the plaintiff or, at the very least, such Impugned Website is associated with the plaintiff. Additionally, defendant no.1's unauthorised use of the Plaintiff's well-known and distinctive trademarks CROMA and the Croma logo for the counterfeit products sold by them is an obvious attempt at ride on the Plaintiff's goodwill and pass off the Impugned Website as originating from the Plaintiff. As is already evident from the incident with an unsuspecting customer, there is actual confusion being caused among consumers and given the Plaintiff's enormous success, distinctive usage and exceptional services, the likelihood of confusion that is likely to continue to be caused amongst the consumers is extremely high. The use of the CROMA mark by defendant no.1 for its Impugned Website, www.cromamart.com, thus, further dilutes the Plaintiff's reputation for exclusivity and uniqueness in respect of its services.
9. Furthermore, having now been alerted to the fact that the goods sold on the Impugned Website by defendant no.1 are counterfeit and having no mechanism to maintain control over the authenticity or quality of products sold on the platform of defendant no.1, the plaintiff faces irreparable monetary and reputational loss on account of the tarnishment of the Plaintiff's trademark CROMA (and other stylised variants) caused by defendant no. 1's unauthorised and illegal use. Thus, defendant no.1's use of the Plaintiff's registered and well-known marks ought to be restrained at the earliest. It is stated that unless restrained, the unauthorized and infringing use by defendant no. 1 of the plaintiff's registered and well-known trademark CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.10/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:23 +0530 CROMA and/or the Croma Logo will inevitably lead to the gradual whittling away and eventual erosion of the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The damage in terms of revenue as well as to the reputation of the Plaintiff's brand and trademarks is therefore severe and irreparable.
10. Thus, the plaintiff in the instant application prays that:-
(a) Grant a summary judgment in terms of paragraph 50 of the plaint against defendant no.1.
(b) Direct the defendant no.2, GoDaddy LLC, to transfer the impugned domain name www.cromamart.com to the plaintiff.
(c). Direct the defendant no.5 to permanently block the mobile number +91 85273 84997.
(d) Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of equity and justice.
11. Summons were issued to the defendants and defendants no.2 to 5 have been duly represented by their respective counsels. However, the defendant no.1 could not be served on the addresses furnished in the memo of parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application under order I Rule 10 CPC to amend the details of defendant no.1, as per information provided by defendant no.2 to 5 and an application under order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint with regard to the particulars of defendant no.1 . The said applications were allowed vide order dated 06.01.2023 and amended memo of parties as well as amended plaint were taken on record. Thereafter, fresh summons were issued to the defendant no.1. However, the defendant no.1 could not be served and therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application u/o V rule 20 CPC for substituted service of defendant no.1. Accordingly, the defendant no.1 has been served through publication in newspapers 'The statesman' and 'Veer Arjun' both dated 03.11.2023 in respect of Gurugram, Delhi and U.P addresses of defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has also been served through publication in the newspapers 'Arun Bhumi' dated 03.01.2024 CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Digitally Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.11/20 lal signed by lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:29 +0530 and 'The Arunachal Times' dated 04.01.2024 in respect of Arunachal address of defendant no.1. Since the defendant no.1 has neither filed written statement nor filed reply to the present application, therefore, vide order dated 13.11.2024, the defendant no.1 has been proceeded ex-parte.
12. Argument heard on application u/o XIII A r/w section 151 CPC.
13. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant no.1 is the registrant of the infringing domain name www.cromamart.com (impugned website) and the said defendant is using this infringing domain name to sell counterfeit products to unsuspecting customers, who are misled to believe that the impugned website is owned and operated by/ associated with plaintiff. Further, the defendant no.1's unauthorized use of plaintiff's well-known and distinctive trade mark CROMA makes its malafide intention to flagrantly infringed the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that summary judgment be passed in terms of para 50 of the plaint against the defendant no.1. He also submitted that defendant no.2, GoDaddy LLC, may be directed to transfer the impugned domain name www.cromamart.com to the plaintiff and also direction may be given to defendant no.5 to permanently block the mobile number +918527384997.
Further during the course of argument, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on the instructions of plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is not pressing the reliefs as mentioned in prayer iv to ix of para 50 of the main suit and the plaintiff is seeking relief only qua defendant no.1 in respect of prayer (i) to (iii) of prayer clause of para 50 of main suit. Further, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff also submitted that plaintiff is not seeking any relief against defendant no.3 and 4.
14. On 15.01.2025 Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 also submitted that defendant no.2 has no objection, if direction is passed to transfer the impugned domain name in favour of the plaintiff. Further, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.3 and 4 also submitted that the defendant no.3 and 4 have no objection if the application under order XIII A CPC of the plaintiff is allowed.
CS (Comm) No. 619/2022Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.12/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:34 +0530 Ld. Counsel for defendant no.5 also submitted that defendant no.5 has no objection if the application under order XIII A CPC of the plaintiff is allowed.
15. I have considered the above submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as well as Ld. respective Counsels for defendant no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and also perused the file.
16. In the instant matter, the plaintiff vide application under order XIII A r/w section 151 CPC seeking summary judgment against defendant no.1. The plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated in the year 2005 under the Companies Act, 1956 and the plaintiff operates its business under mark CROMA and other stylized variants and particularly the mark CROMA has been declared to be well-known by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules vide notification dated 24.02.2020. Further, the plaintiff registered its website www.croma.com in 1996 and launched its CROMA store in the year 2006 and since then, it has grown exponentially. As per the plaintiff, physical network of the plaintiff comprises approximately 355 stores, which has been doubled since the filing of the suit. The plaintiff also claims that it has spent considerable amount of money on the advertisement and promotion of its business under CROMA trade mark/name and in the year 2021, plaintiff spent Rs.66 crores for the said purpose. The plaintiff also claimed to have activity promoted and advertised its goods and services under the mark CROMA on various social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter handle, You Tube channel and Instagram handle. Plaintiff further claimed that due to its high quality services and products under the CROMA, the plaintiff's revenue have consistently risen from the year 2007 to 2018 and more particularly in the year, 2018, plaintiff earned Rs.3759 crores revenue through the sale of CROMA branded products and other products through the plaintiff's services under the mark CROMA. Plaintiff further claimed that plaintiff has won many awards in various categories from 2007 to 2019 and same has been CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.13/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:40 +0530 mentioned in detail in paragraph 9 (n) of the application. As per the plaintiff, the website www.croma.com has noted a progressive rise in traffic over the last few years, which, ranges from 12,420,747 in the year 2013 to 9,63,82,224 in the year 2021 which demonstrates its extensive reach and considerable goodwill. Further, plaintiff also claims that plaintiff has increased its online presence by reaching out to its consumers through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and in the year 2013, number of followers of plaintiff across various social media platforms was 90114 in the year 2013 and the same have been increased to 406681 in the year 2021. Further, as per plaintiff, it has obtained registration of approximately 130 CROMA trademarks including CROMA- formative marks, across classes, in relation to a wide range of goods and services and details of the same have been mentioned in paragraph no.9 (s) of the instant application. Thus, the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff is the only entity which is recognized and identified with a mere reference to the mark CROMA.
17. Plaintiff alleged that in September, 2020, plaintiff received a customer complaint through e-mail from a customer based in New Delhi regarding the purchase of a counterfeit robotic vacuum cleaner through the e-commerce website www.cromamart.com, which the customer mistakenly believed to be the plaintiff's website. Upon further investigation, plaintiff found that not only the said website www.cromamart.com (Impugned Website) was operational but the said website of defendant no.1 was actively offering sale of electronic goods to the consumers. Further, in January, 2021, plaintiff received another customer complaint regarding the infringing activities of defendant no.1 through impugned website. Plaintiff was shocked to find that impugned website was again accessible and the said website continues to display offer for sale and sell counterfeit products using the registered trade mark CROMA of the plaintiff without authorization, despite of cease and CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.14/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:46 +0530 desist notice issued by plaintiff to defendant no.1 on 12.09.2020 and information given to defendant no.2 about the infringing activities of defendant no.1. Thus, the plaintiff again sent another cease and desist notice dated 13.01.2021 to the defendant no.1 and also informed defendant no.2 of the infringing activities of defendant no.1 as carried out through impugned website. The said impugned website was again taken down by the defendant no.1 upon receipt of cease and desist notice and shown to be "under maintenance". As per the plaintiff, however, in May, 2022 while monitoring the status of the impugned website, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the impugned website is again operational and is actively offering for sell of wide variety of goods through the said website displaying the plaintiff's mark CROMA. As such, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no.1's unauthorised use of plaintiff's well-known trade mark CROMA makes its mala fide intention to flagrantly infringed the registered trade mark of plaintiff and such use is undoubtedly bound to create confusion and may lead the public to believe that defendant no.1's impugned website is owned/ operated by the plaintiff or atleast a impugned website is associated with the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff prayed for grant of summary judgment in terms of paragraph 50 of the plaint against defendant no.1 and also prayed to direct the defendant no.2, GoDaddyLLC, to transfer the impugned domain name www.cromamart.com to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further prayed for direction to defendant no.5 to permanently block the mobile no. +918527384997.
18. In the judgment titled as Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. Croma Through Its Proprietor & Ors., in CS (COMM) 71/2022, decided on 12.05.2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, observed as under:-
10.At the outset, it may be relevant to note that the defendant no.1 has deliberately chosen not to enter appearance despite being served. Ample opportunity has been given to the Digitally signed by CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 lal lal singh Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.15/20 Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:51 +0530 defendant no. I to appear before the Court and defend the case; however, no written statement has been filed by the defendant no.1. The maximum permissible period of 120 days in filing the written statement is already over. It is evident that the defendant no.l has no defence to put forth on merits.
11. In terms of Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, since the defendant no.1 has failed to file the affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the plaintiff, the documents filed by the plaintiff shall be deemed to be admitted.
12. From the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed therewith, the plaintiff has been able to prove that it is the registered proprietor of the well-known trademark "CROMA" in several classes and the said registrations are valid and subsisting. The plaintiff has also been able to show its goodwill and reputation in respect of the "CROMA"
trademarks. Further, the plaintiff has placed on record various orders passed by this Court wherein the right of the plaintiff has been duly enforced against the infringers using the mark identical/similar to the plaintiff's mark. Plaintiff has established statutory as well as common law rights on account of long usage of the "CROMA" mark.
13. The impugned website of the defendant no.l is identical/deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff and is likely to deceive the public of its association with the plaintiff. In Anugya Gupta v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1922, this Court while applying the principles of the trademark law has held that the right of the proprietor in a domain name is entitled to equal protection. The user traffic CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.16/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:43:58 +0530 may be diverted due to the use of the same or similar domain name, which could result in a user mistakenly accessing one domain name instead of the one intended. A domain name may, therefore, have all characteristics of a trademark and could result in an act of passing off. Similarly, the use of the trademark "CROMA" as a part of the impugned website is likely to deceive unwary consumers of their association with the plaintiff.
14. From the above, it is clear that the defendant no.l has registered the impugned website with the sole purpose of directing traffic of legitimate consumers by deceiving them into believing that the impugned website is associated with the plaintiff. Further, the defendant no.l is earning revenue through advertisements on the parked impugned website and soliciting to offer the website for a large sum of money. The acts of the defendant no. 1 amount to infringement of the well- known trademark of the plaintiff and passing off the services of the defendant no.1 as that of the plaintiff. Such acts of the defendant no.1 would also lead to tarnishment of the plaintiff's mark.
15. In view of the observations made above and undisputed factual position, it appears that the defendant no.1 does not have any real prospect of successfully defending the claims in the present suit.
16. I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence by filing an affidavit of examination in chief. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Digitally Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.17/20 signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:44:03 +0530 specified value, read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764, has observed as under:
"90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgement against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression "real" directs the Court to examine whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful" prospects of success. This Court is of the view that the expression "no genuine issue requiring a trial" in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and "no other compelling reason....for trial" in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result.
92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.18/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:44:09 +0530 trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim."
As such, in view of the above legal position and facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no impediment in passing summary judgment u/o XIIIA CPC. Moreover, in the instant case also, the defendant no.1 has chosen not to defendant the case despite of service through publication and hence, the defendant no.1 has already been proceeded ex-parte. From the documents, as placed on record by plaintiff, it is amply clear that the defendant no.1 is using the impugned website just to create confusion in the public at large, which, may lead to believe that the said impugned website is owned/ operated by the plaintiff or same is associated with the plaintiff.
19. Further, from the averments made in the plaint and the instant application as well as documents placed on record, the plaintiff has able to establish that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of well-known trademark CROMA in various classes. Thus, apparently the unauthorized use of plaintiff's registered trademark by the defendant no.1, certainly undermines and tarnishes the plaintiff's well-known trademark. Moreover, from the above undisputed factual position and documents as placed on record by the plaintiff, it is apparently clear that the defendant no.1 does not have any real prospect of successfully defending the claims in the present suit. As such, no purpose would be served by directing the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence against the defendant no.1. Therefore, this is a fit case to pass summary judgment under order XIII-A CPC.
20. During the course of argument, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff made a submission and also given statement that plaintiff is not pressing the relief as mentioned in prayer iv to ix of para 50 of the main suit and the plaintiff is seeking relief only against defendant no.1 in respect of prayer (i) to prayer (iii) CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.19/20 Digitally signed by lal lal singh Date:
singh 2025.11.12 16:44:14 +0530 of prayer clause of para 50 of main suit. Further, Ld. counsel for plaintiff also submitted that plaintiff is not seeking any relief against defendant no.3 and 4. Further, on 15.01.2025 Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 also submitted that defendant no.2 has no objection, if direction is passed to transfer the impugned domain name in favour of the plaintiff.
21. As such, in view of the above the present application under order XIII-A CPC is allowed. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 in terms of prayer clause 50 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint. The defendant no.2 GoDaddyLLC, is also directed to transfer the impugned domain name www.cromamart.com to the plaintiff. Further, the defendant no.5 is also directed to permanently block the mobile number +91 8527384997.
22. In view thereof as already mentioned above, the counsel for plaintiff does not press for remaining reliefs as sought in the plaint.
23. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
24. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
25. File be consigned to be record room. Digitally signed lal by lal singh Date:
2025.11.12 singh 16:44:19 +0530 Announced in Open Court (LAL SINGH) today on 12.11.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 South East/Saket Courts, New Delhi CS (Comm) No. 619/2022 Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. M/s Croma Mart & Ors. Page No.20/20