Delhi High Court Grants Complete Stay on ₹336 Crore Ex-Parte Damages Decree Against Amazon Technologies Inc. in Trademark Infringement Suit

Introduction

In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench (Justice Harishankar & Justice Digpaul) stayed the ex‑parte Single Judge judgment in Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors. This halted a ₹339 crore decree against Amazon Technologies, Inc., underlining critical procedural lapses and questioning the boundaries of platform liability in trademark infringement.

Facts

Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (Plaintiffs) sued Amazon Technologies, Inc. (D1 – licensor), Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (D2 – retailer), and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (D3 – platform intermediary), alleging unauthorized use of a polo-player mark similar to Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) on garments sold on Amazon.in

The Single Judge held Amazon liable for e-infringement—where licensors, platforms, retailers, and sellers form part of a unified infringement chain—and awarded ₹339 crore as damages.

Issues

• Whether the money decree could be stayed, despite the general principle against staying such awards.
• Whether the decree was vitiated by serious procedural defects like lack of pleadings and ex parte proceedings.
• Whether Amazon Technologies (D1) was wrongly held liable based on intermediary conduct or its role as licensor, with corporate identities improperly conflated.

Arguments / Observations

• Exceptional Circumstances for Stay: The DB cited applicable precedents (like Malwa Strips) to allow a stay without security deposit, given the procedural infirmities.
• Pleadings vs. Evidence: The ₹339 cr damages claim appeared only in post-pleadings submissions—escalated from ₹2 cr to ₹3,780 cr without formal amendment or notice. The judgment noted that evidence must align with plea, and such unilateral increase rendered the decree unsound.
• Corporate Roles Misaligned: Amazon Technologies (D1) was treated as intermediary (despite D3 being the platform), and liability was inferred via D1’s role as licensor and its commercial link with Cloudtail. DB criticized this conflation as a serious legal error.
• Safe Harbour Overreach: By attributing D3’s exclusion from liability to D1, the Single Judge effectively stripped safe harbour protection based on commercial affiliation and control—without adequate reasoning or established precedent.

Judgment

• The Division Bench stayed the ₹339 crore money decree passed ex parte by the Single Judge, citing grave procedural impropriety and misapplication of intermediary liability norms.
• The stay was granted without requiring Amazon to deposit the disputed amount, as the decree was deemed “tainted” by violations of principles of natural justice and basic pleadings discipline