Amazon to pay damages of INR 339.25 Crore/ $ 39 Million for selling infringing products

The Landmark Trademark Battle: Beverly Hills Polo Club vs. Amazon Technologies

Introduction

In a landmark case that highlights the growing challenges of intellectual property rights in the e-commerce era, Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV (the plaintiffs) successfully sued Amazon Technologies Inc. and its associates for trademark infringement. The case, CS(COMM) 443/2020, was decided by the Delhi High Court on February 25, 2025. This lawsuit sheds light on how digital marketplaces are increasingly becoming breeding grounds for trademark violations, raising pertinent legal and commercial concerns.

Background of the Case

Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV own the globally recognized Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand, famous for its premium apparel, accessories, and lifestyle products. Since 2007, the BHPC brand has enjoyed a significant presence in India through its licensing agreements, retail partnerships, and e-commerce listings. The plaintiffs alleged that Amazon Technologies, through its private-label brand ‘Symbol’, was using a logo strikingly similar to the BHPC’s iconic horse-rider mark, leading to consumer confusion and brand dilution.

Defendants and Their Roles

The lawsuit named three primary defendants:

• Amazon Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 1): Allegedly responsible for the unauthorized use of the infringing ‘Symbol’ logo.
• Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 2): Acted as a retailer selling the infringing products on Amazon.
• Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 3): The operator of the e-commerce platform www.amazon.in, which facilitated the sale of the infringing products.

The plaintiffs contended that the deliberate misuse of the BHPC logo misled consumers into believing that the infringing products were associated with their prestigious brand, damaging their reputation and business interests.

The Court’s Observations on E-Infringement

The Delhi High Court recognized the growing complexity of digital trademark infringement and termed such cases as ‘e-infringement’. Unlike traditional retail violations, where a single entity can be held accountable, e-commerce platforms create multi-layered legal challenges:

• The brand owner of the infringing product (Amazon Technologies Inc.).
• The retailer selling the infringing goods (Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.).
• The e-commerce platform facilitating the sale (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.).
• The logistics providers, manufacturers, and advertising agencies that indirectly support these sales.

Key Findings of the Court

1. Trademark Infringement Established: The court ruled that the ‘Symbol’ logo was a direct imitation of the BHPC mark, violating the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights.
2. Amazon’s Control Over Cloudtail: Evidence showed that Amazon Technologies Inc. exercised significant control over Cloudtail’s branding and sales activities, contradicting claims that Cloudtail acted independently.
3. Deliberate Brand Dilution: The court noted that Amazon’s predatory pricing strategy, offering lookalike products at a fraction of BHPC’s retail price, devalued the plaintiffs’ brand.
4. Liability for Damages: The lawsuit uncovered that Cloudtail had earned INR 23,92,420 from sales of the infringing products. Based on their profit margin of 20%, the court awarded INR 4,78,484 in damages to the plaintiffs.
5. Amazon to Pay INR 339.25 Crore ($39 Million) in Damages: The court ordered Amazon to compensate BHPC for the extensive losses incurred due to the unauthorized sale of infringing products.
6. Lack of Defense by Amazon Technologies: Despite being a multinational entity, Amazon Technologies chose to remain ex-parte (absent from proceedings), which was interpreted as an acknowledgment of liability.

Financial and Reputational Damages

The plaintiffs demonstrated a significant decline in their Indian sales compared to their flourishing business in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) region where no such infringement took place. The expert witnesses established that Amazon’s actions led to:

• A loss of royalty earnings amounting to USD 21.85 million (minimum) and USD 33.78 million (based on business plans).
• A failed joint venture opportunity, leading to an estimated loss of USD 50 million.
• Reputational damage requiring USD 5 million in additional marketing expenses to restore brand credibility.

The Global Impact of Amazon’s Trademark Infringement

This case is not an isolated incident. Reports from Reuters (2021) and the UK Supreme Court (2024) indicate that Amazon has engaged in similar trademark violations worldwide. The Delhi High Court took note of these findings, reinforcing the need for stronger international IP enforcement mechanisms.

Legal Precedents and Future Implications

This ruling sets an important precedent in Indian and global trademark law. The court’s decision to impose monetary damages on Cloudtail and its emphasis on Amazon’s strategic role in IP violations establishes a roadmap for future trademark battles in the digital economy.

Key Takeaways for Brand Owners and E-Commerce Platforms

1. Brand Owners:

   • Must actively monitor and enforce trademark rights in e-commerce markets.
   • Should conduct periodic investigations into potential IP infringements on online platforms.
   • Need to document sales losses and brand dilution evidence to strengthen legal claims.

2. E-Commerce Platforms:

   • Should implement stricter compliance mechanisms for third-party sellers.
   • Need to ensure that private-label brands do not mimic established trademarks.
   • Must establish transparent policies for IP dispute resolution.

Conclusion: A Victory for Trademark Protection

The Beverly Hills Polo Club vs. Amazon judgment is a significant step towards curbing digital trademark infringement. The case underscores the responsibility of global e-commerce players in protecting intellectual property and maintaining fair competition. With brands increasingly relying on digital retail channels, this ruling sends a strong message that IP rights must be upheld, regardless of the platform.

This case serves as a wake-up call for both brands and e-commerce giants, emphasizing the importance of ethical business practices and legal accountability in the rapidly evolving digital marketplace.

Case Details: CS(COMM) 443/2020; LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Vs.  AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS., Delhi High Court

For expert advice on handling trademark infringement, reach out to LexIndia IP Solutions. We’re here to help you safeguard your brand.