Delhi High Court Slaps Hefty Fine on Amazon for Trademark Infringement
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately Rs 340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities for trademark infringement. The court found that the e-commerce giant had infringed upon the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark.
Justice Prathiba M Singh issued the ruling, though the detailed judgment is still pending release.
In 2020, Lifestyle Equities CV initiated a lawsuit alleging that Amazon Technologies and other entities used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on their platforms. The suit accused Amazon Technologies of manufacturing and selling products under the “Symbol” brand that carried the infringing logo. Cloudtail India was also implicated as a seller of these items on Amazon.in.
The High Court initially issued an interim injunction on October 12, 2020, barring Amazon and its affiliates from using the disputed mark. Amazon Seller Services was directed to remove infringing products from its platform.
Amazon Technologies failed to appear in court and faced a default judgment. The interim injunction was later made permanent.
In 2023, Cloudtail India admitted to using the infringing mark between 2015 and July 2020. Revenue from these products totaled Rs 23,92,420, with an approximate profit margin of 20 percent. The company sought a settlement and offered to accept an injunction, but mediation efforts were unsuccessful.
Cloudtail’s counsel argued that the company should bear the sole liability for damages, citing an Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement. Lifestyle Equities contended that the infringing mark was not covered under this agreement and insisted that both Amazon and Cloudtail be held accountable.
The court acknowledged Cloudtail’s admission of liability and awarded Rs 4,78,484 in damages, representing 20 percent of the revenue from infringing sales. However, the court also ruled that Lifestyle Equities was entitled to seek damages from Amazon. Amazon Seller Services, recognized as an intermediary, complied with the court’s directives and agreed to remove future listings of infringing products; consequently, it was removed from the case.
