According to a report by The Indian Express, the Delhi High Court has directed Amazon Technologies Inc. to pay nearly Rs 340 crore in damages for unauthorised trademark use, ruling in favour of Amsterdam-based apparel and accessories brand Lifestyle Equities.
The case involved Amazon’s alleged infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark. Lifestyle Equities, the rightful owner of the mark, claimed that Amazon, along with its affiliates Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Services, had misused the logo on its platform, leading to brand dilution and consumer confusion. The court ruled in favour of the brand, terming Amazon’s actions as “blatant infringement” in the e-commerce space.
Justice Prathiba Singh, in her verdict, strongly criticised Amazon Technologies for “evading liability” by portraying itself under different roles—as an intermediary, a retailer, and a brand owner. The court observed that Amazon had failed to clarify its internal relationships, strategically avoided scrutiny, and demonstrated a “deliberate strategy of obfuscation.”
The ruling emphasised that trademark infringement in e-commerce poses significant challenges, as consumers rely on product images rather than physical verification. The court noted that the similarities between the counterfeit and original BHPC logos were nearly indistinguishable, and Amazon’s unauthorised pricing strategies had diminished brand equity for Lifestyle Equities.
While Lifestyle Equities initially sought Rs 1,260 crore ($155.59 million) in damages, the court awarded them Rs 336 crore ($38.78 million) in compensatory damages, citing lost royalties and increased marketing costs. Amazon was also directed to cover Rs 3.23 crore in litigation expenses.
Breakdown of damages
- Rs 43.32 crore ($5 million) – Additional advertising and marketing expenses
- Rs 292.70 crore ($33.78 million) – Lost royalties from unauthorised sales
- Rs 3.23 crore – Litigation costs
Total: Rs 339.25 crore + court fees
As per The Indian Express, Amazon did not contest the lawsuit, and the court did not conduct an inquiry into the company’s profits from the infringement.
This ruling reinforces the increasing legal scrutiny surrounding trademark violations in e-commerce, setting a precedent for stricter enforcement against online intellectual property breaches.
