E-commerce
Delhi High Court Orders Amazon to Pay $38.78 Million in Trademark Infringement Case
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed Amazon Technologies Inc. to pay $38.78 million (Rs 3,392.5 million) in damages for trademark infringement to Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV, the owners of the iconic Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. This decision represents a critical legal precedent for holding global e-commerce platforms accountable for their role in facilitating the sale of counterfeit or infringing products.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV filed a lawsuit against Amazon Technologies Inc. and its associated entities — Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. — for unauthorised use of a logo nearly identical to their BHPC mark. The infringement was tied to products sold under Amazon’s private label ‘Symbol’, which used a horse logo resembling BHPC’s emblem.
Despite multiple summons and court orders, Amazon and its associated parties failed to appear before the court, prompting the proceedings to continue ex parte. The plaintiffs presented extensive oral and documentary evidence, including testimony from five key witnesses, to establish the scale and impact of the infringement.
Court’s Observations on E-Commerce and Liability
The Delhi High Court addressed the evolving role of e-commerce platforms in IP infringement cases. It observed that the layered corporate structure of Amazon and its affiliates appeared deliberately designed to evade liability. The court noted that while Amazon claimed intermediary status, it was actively enabling the unauthorised sale of infringing products.
The judgment described this as “e-infringement” — a deliberate and wilful violation of trademark rights carried out through digital channels. The court clarified that when an e-commerce platform benefits commercially from such activities, it cannot hide behind the intermediary shield.
Global Amazon Strike Disrupts Black Friday: Workers Demand Fair Pay and Justice
Calculation of Damages
In calculating damages, the court relied on the trademark licensing agreement between the plaintiffs and their Indian licensee. The agreement, which stipulated a 7.5% royalty on gross sales, formed the basis for assessing lost earnings.
Key considerations in the damage assessment included:
– Estimated loss of royalties from minimum and projected sales
– Additional advertising and promotional costs incurred by the plaintiffs
– The duration and wilful nature of the infringement
As a result, the court awarded:
$33.78 million in compensation for lost royalties
$5 million for enhanced marketing and promotional efforts
Significance and Implications
This ruling marks a major milestone in IP enforcement in India, especially in the context of the digital marketplace. It sends a clear message that large e-commerce entities cannot evade responsibility by structuring their operations to diffuse legal accountability.
Legal experts view the judgment as a turning point in how Indian courts address the role of online platforms in IP violations. It also reinforces the need for comprehensive legal frameworks that adapt to modern e-commerce and digital branding complexities.
By holding Amazon liable for “e-infringement,” the Delhi High Court has set a strong precedent to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age — a decision likely to influence global conversations around online liability and platform accountability.
