Lifestyle Equities Vs Amazon Technologies, Inc.Trademark infringement liability extends to e-commerce brand owners if they directly authorize and control infringing activities.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities Vs Amazon Technologies, Inc.
Date of Order: 25th February 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 443/2020
Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:1231
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, H. J.
Introduction:
This case involves a trademark infringement dispute between Life Style Equities CV, the owner of the "Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC)" brand, and Amazon Technologies, Inc. along with its associated entities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in unauthorized use of the BHPC logo, which was sold under Amazon’s private label “Symbol.” The case primarily revolved around e-commerce trademark infringement, intermediary liability, and damages assessment.
Factual Background:
Life Style Equities CV has been using the "Beverly Hills Polo Club" (BHPC) trademark since 1982 and has a strong presence in India since 2007. The plaintiffs entered into various licensing agreements for the distribution and sale of BHPC products in India and globally.
In May 2020, the plaintiffs discovered that Amazon was selling products under its private label “Symbol” with a logo deceptively similar to the BHPC mark on its e-commerce platform www.amazon.in. Upon purchasing the infringing products, they found that the logo was an imitation of their BHPC logo. The plaintiffs claimed that this usage was misleading customers and damaging their goodwill.
Procedural Background:
On 12th October 2020, the Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Amazon Technologies and Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. from selling infringing products. On 20th April 2022, Amazon Technologies failed to appear in court and was proceeded against ex-parte. On 5th September 2022, Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. expressed willingness to suffer a decree of injunction and pay reasonable damages. On 25th May 2023, plaintiffs were permitted to lead ex-parte evidence. On 5th July 2023, witness evidence was recorded via video conferencing. On 12th July 2024, final hearing reserved. On 25th February 2025, judgment delivered.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether Amazon’s use of a deceptively similar logo on its “Symbol” brand products infringed the BHPC trademark. Whether Amazon, as an intermediary and brand owner, could be held responsible for the infringing sales. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensatory and punitive damages due to loss of business and goodwill. Whether Amazon could claim exemption from liability under intermediary safe harbor provisions.
Submissions of the Parties:
Amazon’s sale of products with an infringing logo under the “Symbol” brand misled consumers. Defendant No.1 (Amazon Technologies) was responsible for controlling and licensing the use of the "Symbol" brand to Defendant No.2 (Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd.), making them directly liable for infringement. The plaintiffs suffered financial losses due to the unauthorized sale of infringing products from 2015-2020, leading to significant business losses. They relied on expert testimony (PW-3) to establish lost royalties of USD 33.78 million.
Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No.2) acknowledged liability, agreed to an injunction, and provided sales data. Amazon Technologies Inc. (Defendant No.1) chose not to appear in court and was proceeded against ex-parte. Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No.3) claimed intermediary protection and was removed from the case.
Discussion on Judgments and Legal Citations:
Times Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava, 116 (2005) DLT 569 was cited by plaintiffs to argue for punitive damages. The court rejected this precedent, stating punitive damages should not be awarded arbitrarily. Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003) was referred to by plaintiffs to argue that punitive damages prevent commercial wrongdoers from profiting through unlawful activities. Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon UK Services Ltd., [2024] UKSC 8, a UK Supreme Court case involving Amazon and Lifestyle Equities on a similar issue, discussed how Amazon systematically engages in brand infringement. Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Rickett Benckiser India Ltd., ILR (2014) II Delhi 1288 was used by plaintiffs to argue that damages should be awarded based on lost business projections.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Judge:
Amazon Technologies was the registered owner of the "Symbol" trademark and had directly authorized Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. to sell the infringing products. The court applied the Triple Identity Test (identical mark, goods, and trade channels) and found that infringement was clearly established.
Amazon deliberately evaded accountability by wearing multiple hats (as an intermediary, a retailer, and a brand owner), making it liable for damages. The court awarded damages based on lost royalties, increased advertising costs, and brand dilution.
Basis for Calculating Damages
The damages awarded in this case were calculated based on multiple factors, including lost royalties, increased advertising costs, and brand dilution. The court relied on expert testimony and financial projections to determine the appropriate compensation. The Trademark License Agreement (TLA) dated 26th November, 2012, executed between Plaintiff No.2 (Lifestyle Licensing B.V.) and Major Brands India Pvt. Ltd., was considered a reliable benchmark. Under the TLA, royalties were calculated at 7.5% on the gross sales, with minimum sales requirements and projected sales targets. Since the infringement took place between 2015-2020, the sales decline was compared with the expected performance under the TLA.
Before infringement, the BHPC brand in India exceeded its projected sales target, showing strong business growth. The defendants' infringing activities started in 2015 and continued until 2020, leading to a significant sales drop in India compared to BHPC's GCC region, which had no infringement and saw a tenfold increase in sales. Plaintiffs' expert witness (PW-3) calculated lost royalties using two models: Minimum Sales Model ($21.85 million) and Business Plan Sales Model ($33.78 million). The court accepted the business plan model, as the brand was expanding before infringement.
Plaintiffs' apparel was priced at ₹2,500 - ₹4,500, but the defendants' infringing products were sold on Amazon at ₹300 - ₹400. This devalued the brand’s reputation, leading to a perception that BHPC was a “cheap” brand. Due to this, the plaintiffs lost market value and consumer trust, forcing them to spend more on advertising and rebranding. The plaintiffs had to increase their marketing efforts to counteract the damage, leading to an award of USD 5 million for additional advertising expenses.
The plaintiffs planned to expand into Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, expecting to generate at least half the revenue projected for India. This expansion failed due to the infringement, resulting in USD 10.93 - 16.89 million in lost earnings. Plaintiffs had planned a joint venture and Initial Public Offering (IPO) with their Indian retail partner. Due to infringement, this opportunity collapsed, leading to USD 50 million in lost enterprise value.
Final Decision:
Permanent Injunction was granted against Amazon Technologies and Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. restraining them from using the infringing logo. Compensatory Damages of USD 38.78 million (₹336,02,87,000) were awarded, along with ₹3,23,10,966.60 towards advertising costs. The total compensation awarded was ₹339,25,97,966.60 plus court fees.
Law Settled in This Case:
Trademark infringement liability extends to e-commerce brand owners if they directly authorize and control infringing activities.
The Triple Identity Test is a valid method to establish trademark infringement. Punitive damages cannot be awarded arbitrarily but must be justified with clear evidence. E-commerce platforms cannot claim safe harbor protection if they are directly involved in branding and sales.
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
