Battle of the Brands: How Lifestyle Equities Took on Amazon—and Won!

Introduction

This case before the Delhi High Court involved Lifestyle Equities CV & Lifestyle Licensing BV (Plaintiffs) seeking permanent injunction and damages against Amazon Technologies Inc. & Others (Defendants) for trademark infringement of the “Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC)” brand. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants were unlawfully using a similar horse-and-rider logo under the “Symbol” brand on Amazon’s e-commerce platform.

Facts

• Plaintiffs own and license the BHPC trademark, widely recognized in fashion and lifestyle markets across multiple countries, including India.
• Defendants (Amazon Technologies Inc., Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.) were selling products with a deceptively similar logo under the “Symbol” brand on Amazon.in.
• Plaintiffs discovered the alleged infringement in May 2020 and filed the suit in September 2020, seeking injunction and damages.
• Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technologies Inc.) remained ex-parte, while Defendant No.2 (Cloudtail) admitted infringement and agreed to a decree of injunction and damages.

Issues

1. Trademark Infringement – Whether the Defendants’ use of a similar logo constituted infringement of the Plaintiffs’ BHPC trademark.
2. Liability of E-Commerce Platforms – Whether Amazon could be held liable for infringement by sellers on its platform.
3. Assessment of Damages – Quantum of damages for loss of brand value, goodwill, and lost business opportunities.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

• The Symbol logo used by Amazon was a slavish imitation of the BHPC mark, leading to consumer confusion and brand dilution.
• Amazon engaged in predatory pricing, selling infringing products at significantly lower prices (₹375-₹399), damaging BHPC’s luxury positioning.
• Plaintiffs suffered substantial loss in sales, while their Gulf region business flourished, indicating infringement in India was the primary reason.
• Amazon’s actions also benefited U.S. Polo Association, a direct competitor, further harming Plaintiffs’ business.
• Plaintiffs claimed $33.78 million in damages, including lost sales, market disruption, and reputational harm.

Defendants’ Arguments

• Cloudtail (Defendant No.2) admitted to selling the products but argued that Amazon Technologies Inc. (Defendant No.1) was not responsible for the infringement.
• Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No.3) claimed intermediary protection, stating that they only provided a platform and removed infringing listings as directed by the Court.
• Amazon Technologies did not contest the case and remained ex-parte.

Analysis of the Court

• The Court rejected Amazon’s claim of non-liability, noting that Amazon Technologies Inc. controlled the “Symbol” brand and Cloudtail was merely a licensee.
• It found clear evidence of willful infringement, with Amazon systematically copying popular brands, as noted in global reports.
• The Court recognized “e-infringement”, where multiple e-commerce entities collaborate to infringe IP rights while attempting to escape liability.
• Given Amazon’s dominant position, the Court emphasized the need for stricter accountability in online IP enforcement.

Judgment

The Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the infringing mark. It awarded compensatory damages of USD 38.78 million (equivalent to ₹336,02,87,000) to the Plaintiffs, comprising lost royalties and increased advertising expenses. Additionally, the Court awarded costs of ₹3,23,10,966.60 in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Conclusion

The Court reaffirmed the importance of IP protection in e-commerce, emphasizing brand owners’ rights against large online platforms engaging in trademark infringement. The ruling sets a precedent for holding e-commerce giants accountable for unauthorized trademark use by sellers on their platforms.