5 min readNew DelhiFeb 27, 2025 10:33 PM IST
First published on: Feb 27, 2025 at 10:33 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has directed e-commerce giant Amazon Technologies Inc to pay nearly Rs 340 crore in damages for trademark infringement of Amsterdam-based apparels and accessories’ brand Lifestyle Equities.
The order for damages comes against the plaintiffs’ claim of damages worth Rs 1260 crore or USD 155.59 million.
The court also took a strong view of Amazon’s attempt at “deliberate strategy of obfuscation… in an attempt to shift responsibility and evade liability for trademark infringement”. The court did not mince words to term the “e-infringement” indulged in by Amazon Technologies as “totally immeasurable”.
“… it is also evident that Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technologies) is engaging in a deliberate strategy of obfuscation, pretending to wear different hats — one as an intermediary, one as a retailer, and one as a brand owner — all in an attempt to shift responsibility and evade liability for trademark infringement. However, it is a well known reality that all three defendants belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity. Defendant No.1 has selectively chosen when to appear and not appear before the Court. At a time when the Court directed vide order dated 20th April, 2022 to explain the exact relationship between the three defendants, it agreed to suffer a permanent injunction, thereby evading scrutiny. Thus, the clear attempt is to not disclose the exact relationship between the said three defendants to this Court. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, this is not a bona fide conduct of a party before the Court and the conduct of the defendant clearly demonstrates that there is an intent to withhold crucial information from the Court, rather than engage in bona fide conduct as expected of a party before a judicial forum,” Justice Prathiba Singh recorded.
The plaintiffs — Amsterdam-based Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV, dealing in manufacturing, distribution and sale of a wide range of products including garments, apparels, accessories — had asserted that they are the rightful proprietors of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) mark, which comprises a distinctive logo featuring a charging polo pony with a mounted rider wielding a raised polo stick.
The plaintiffs had also contended that the defendants — Amazon Technologies, Cloudtail India Private Ltd and Amazon Seller Service Private Limited — have infringed the BHPC trademark by its unauthorised use on its platforms, causing consumer confusion and dilution of the plaintiffs’ mark and goodwill. According to the plaintiffs, Cloudtail India was selling apparel products with the infringing logo through Amazon Technologies’ private label ‘Symbol’.
The court found that the horse device logo is almost identical, that the goods (apparel) are identical, and that the trade channels/consumers too are identical. The court had earlier in an order on March 2, 2023, ordered for permanent injunction against Amazon Technologies from using the logo, and the court was subsequently adjudicating whether Amazon technologies will be liable to pay damages for “such blatant infringement on the ecommerce platform which can also be termed as e-infringement.” The court ruled in the affirmative.
Notably, Amazon Technologies did not contest the suit. In calculating the damages, the court only took into account the financial harm suffered by, and did not conduct an inquiry into Amazon Technologies’ profits.
While calculating the damages, the court also took into account the unqiue position of the infringement being over an e-commerce platform. To this effect, the court reasoned that the infringing conduct is on an e-commerce platform where the consumer tends to order by looking at the image rather than the actual product, and that the consumer does not feel the product or the quality thereof and goes by the prominence of a logo. The court also observed that Amazon’s pricing of its products is eroding the brand equity of the plaintiffs. GIven that the differences in the logos were “almost non-existent”, the court concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to “damages both as compensation as also on lost sales and royalty.”
What Amazon has to pay
A. Damages awarded in favour of plaintiffs by the court:
1. Additional compensatory damages on account of increased advertising and marketing expenses: USD 5 million equivalent to Rs 43.32 crore
2. Compensatory damages for lost royalties based on business plan sales: USD 33.78 million equivalent to Rs 292.70 crore
Total Compensatory damages payable: USD 38.78 million or Rs 336.02 crore
B. Cost of suit to be borne by defendants: Rs 3.23 crore along with court fee
Total (damages and cost) payable to plaintiffs by defendants: Rs 339.25 crore+court fee
The order for damages comes against the plaintiffs’ claim of damages worth Rs 1260 crore or USD 155.59 million. (Express File Photo) 
Share
