A comprehensive ten year study of damages awarded by the Delhi High Court in trademark infringement cases reveals the remarkable extent to which the quantum of damages can be correlated to the presence of certain factual criteria. It brings into sharp focus exactly how far the reasoning behind awarding and quantifying damages – often the biggest takeaway and most powerful deterrent in trademark infringement cases – has been rendered an afterthought. Commencing with a critical commentary on the headline damages payouts by the Delhi High Court in 1, I break down the significant statistical outcomes of damages awarded based on key criteria, including aggravating and mitigating factors considered and litigant profile, in 2. I then employ these findings in 3 as the basis for a proposed basic minimum checklist for quantifying damages in such cases going forward – an area where judicial reasoning has been strikingly and disappointingly thin in the past decade.