INTRODUCTION

In the move of protection of IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights), one of the largest e-commerce platforms has also faced the consequences of infringing the trademark. As IPRs encourage innovation and creativity by giving businesses and individuals exclusive rights to their work, they are the engines of economic growth also. For their protection, courts are also functioning actively. One such Judicial step has occurred on 25^th February, 2025 when Delhi High Court has passed the judgement against Amazon Technologies Inc.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Parties in the case are as follows:

1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiff No.1- Lifestyle Equities C.V. (hereinafter ‘LECV’) Plaintiff No. 2- Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (hereinafter ‘LLBV’)
2. Defendants: Defendant No.1- Amazon Technologies, Inc. Defendant No.2- Cloudtail India Private LimitedDefendant No.3- Amazon Seller Service Private Limited

Coram: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Background:

In this case, the plaintiffs are the lawful proprietors of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (hereinafter ‘BHPC’), which is apparel brand capturing the excitement of the sport of polo along with the exclusivity of membership to a private club enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets. The Plaintiff No.1 has granted the license to Plaintiff No.2 and further Plaintiff No.2 has also granted sub-licenses in various countries. The trademark of BHPC consists of a distinctive logo featuring a charging polo pony with a mounted rider wielding a raised polo stick (mallet), symbolizing the sport of polo as shown in the left side. This mark is inspired from the geographical location Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, California, USA. In relation to India, the mark and logo has been in use since 2007 and has developed a good brand recognition, reputation and goodwill. Plaintiffs said that they came across a sale going on the websites of the Defendant No. 3 (i.e. ‘www.amazon.in’) and all three defendants were involved in it. Defendant No.1 was said to be having the private label of sale as “Symbol” and Defendant No. 2 has conducted the sale. Foe confirmation plaintiffs purchased some products from the website and got that their logo has been imitated by the defendants’ logo. On this, they filed the case against all three defendants for the infringement of their registered trademark and seek permanent injunction and damages.

Infringement of BHPC trademark Firstly, for the infringement of any trademark 3 essentials must be fulfilled and those are as follows:

1. Valid trademark
2. Similar use of trademark
3. Likelihood of confusion In this case also, the essentials are getting fulfilled. The comparison between Original and deceptive trademark is shown below:

Plaintiffs’ original mark	Defendants’ mark

Court Proceedings For the very first time, plaintiffs filed the infringement suit in 2020 and then court passed the order on 12^th October,2020 as restraining Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from selling, offering, advertising or from any other involvement of infringing plaintiffs’ trademark through ad-interim injunction.

For the ad-interim injunctions, 3 essentials must be fulfilled as:

a)Prima Facie case, b)Irreparable injury, c)Balance of convenience Hence, in this case also, the court found out all 3 essentials in plaintiffs’ favour and passed the order.  On 20^th April, 2022, the court asked the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to file separate affidavits as to clear their relationships with Defendant No.1 as he did not appear in the court.

• In consequence to this, on 18^th August,2022 the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed the documents as asked in the above order but the affidavit by Defendant No.3 was not satisfactory and asked to file it again.
• Then, on 5^th September,2022 Defendants Nos. 2 and 1 submitted that they agree to i)suffer a decree of injunction ii)pay reasonable damages.
• On this, the matter was submitted to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to examine the amount of damages. Further, it was also submitted that Defendant No. 3 i.e. Amazon Seller Service Private Limited is not liable for the damages and only cloudtail is responsible for it. The Defendant No. 3 has also submitted that it is only an intermediary and no direct role is there in the infringement. Written Statements of Defendants:
• Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 have submitted written statements. Defendant No. 2 maintains that the contested logo is not being used in a trademark manner. Regarding the position of Defendant No. 3, it has stated that the purported listings have been taken down, to which the plaintiffs raised objections. For lack of knowledge, nearly every allegation pertaining to the plaintiffs’ case is rejected. Therefore, neither written statement offers a convincing defense. The Court’s opinion on Defendants’ defences:
• Examining the Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 reveals that Amazon maintains ownership of the trademark license, liability, and intellectual property protection provisions and considerable authority over Cloudtail’s distribution and branding initiatives.    Final decision on 25^th February, 2025:
• Finally, the court has decided this matter in the favour of Plaintiffs. Under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Plaintiffs have the option of claiming either damages or rendition of accounts of profits, ensuring that they are adequately compensated for the unlawful exploitation of their trademark.
• Here, the court has granted to pay a hefty penalty of $39 million. If the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant No.1, interest @ 5% per annum would be payable, from the date of this judgment until the full realization of the said amount. Conclusion: In 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered Amazon to pay $39 million in damages for selling unauthorized products bearing the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) logo. The court ruled that Amazon facilitated trademark infringement by allowing third-party sellers to list counterfeit products.

Vani Chaudhary(Intern @ Akhildev IPR attorneys)