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.

Issues:
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?

Rules:
To determine the resolution of the issues, the following legal principles are applicable:

Trademark Infringement:
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.

Passing off:
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.

Permanent injunction:
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.

Ancillary reliefs:
The plaintiff may be entitled to other remedies such as damages, account of profits, and delivery up or destruction of infringing goods.

Analysis:
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 the case.

Conclusion:
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 factors.

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 not occurred.

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.