The High Court of Delhi has ruled in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. vs Amazon Technologies, Inc., exposing how e-commerce giants leverage marketplace dominance at the expense of brand owners. Amazon was found to have used a logo infringing upon the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark, leading to a permanent injunction and substantial damages. The suit, filed in September 2020, challenged Amazon’s use of the Symbol brand, which Lifestyle Equities argued was an attempt to ride on BHPC’s established reputation.

The BHPC Trademark and Brand Recognition

The Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark is inspired by Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, a well-known hub for luxury and high-end fashion. Established in 1982 and introduced in India in 2007, the brand has built built substantial goodwill through consistent use and marketing.

The BHPC trademark consists of:

• The word mark BHPC.
• A logo featuring a charging polo pony, its rider, and a mallet.

According to Lifestyle Equities, this unique combination serves as a distinct brand identifier, highlighting its association with polo, luxury, and premium lifestyle products.

The Dispute: Copying the Polo Rider

As the rightful owner of the BHPC mark, Lifestyle Equities alleged that Amazon’s Symbol brand featured a polo pony and rider logo confusingly similar to its own. The company argued that this constituted trademark infringement under the test of deceptive similarity, misleading consumers into associating Symbol with BHPC.

This, they claimed, led to:

• Brand dilution (weakening of BHPC’s distinctiveness).
• Loss of exclusivity and consumer trust.

Amazon’s Defence and the Court’s Take

Amazon attempted to shield itself under the intermediary status argument, claiming it was merely hosting the sales and not directly responsible for the infringement. However, the court dismissed this defence, ruling that:

• Amazon owned and controlled the Symbol brand.
• It actively participated in branding and sales.
• The company played a direct role in pricing and distribution.

The court also applied the Initial Interest Confusion, noting that even if consumers later realised the difference, the initial similarity could still mislead them into considering Symbol as a BHPC affiliated brand.

Additionally, the Triple Identity Test established that:

• The logos were visually similar.
• The goods (apparel) were identical.
• The trade channels (online sales platforms) were the same.

Pricing comparisons revealed further harm, with BHPC products retailing at ₹3,000-5,000 ($36-60), while Symbol products sold for as little as ₹300-400 ($3.60-4.80), significantly undercutting BHPC’s market position.

The Court’s Ruling on Amazon’s Role

Amazon attempted to shift responsibility to Cloudtail India Private Limited, arguing that Cloudtail alone was responsible for retailing Symbol products. However, the court found that Amazon’s role extended beyond that of a passive intermediary. By exercising control over branding, pricing, and distribution, Amazon forfeited intermediary protection.

The court also emphasized the growing challenge of e-infringement, where multiple entities: brand owners, retailers, intermediaries, and logistics providers are involved in the sale of infringing goods.

The Judgment

On February 25, 2025, the court ruled against Amazon, awarding damages totalling USD 38.78 million (₹339.25 crore):

• USD 33.78 million (₹292.70 crore) for lost royalties.
• USD 5 million (₹43.32 crore) for increased advertising and promotional costs.
• USD 370,158 (₹3.23 crore) in additional costs, plus court fees.

The court applied the precedent from Rookes v. Barnard, supporting exemplary damages for willful trademark infringement. This ensured that Amazon could not profit from its violations while reaffirming the limits of intermediary immunity.

If Amazon fails to pay within three months, an interest rate of 5% per annum will apply.

Conclusion

The ruling exposes the growing challenge of trademark enforcement in online marketplaces. E-commerce platforms that actively control branding, pricing, and product sales cannot claim safe harbour protections as neutral intermediaries.

This decision further strengthens the argument for stricter e-commerce regulations, holding platforms accountable when they engage in branding and sales rather than remaining neutral intermediaries.

With e-commerce shaping the retail industry, legal frameworks must continue to evolve to safeguard trademark rights against unauthorized commercial use.

---

Source:

Lifestyle Equities Cv & Anr. vs Amazon Technologies, Inc. on 25 February, 2025