HC orders Amazon to pay Rs 340 cr to Lifestyle Equities over infringement

During the proceedings of the case, Cloudtail India agreed to accept an injunction decree and proposed a settlement which would include damages

The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately Rs 340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities, ruling that the e-commerce giant infringed upon the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark.

 

Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020 against Amazon Technologies and others, alleging unauthorised use of a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on their platforms. The plea claimed that Amazon Technologies was manufacturing and selling products under its brand Symbol, featuring the infringing mark, with Cloudtail India, one of the sellers on the e-commerce site, also participating in the sale of these items on Amazon.in.

 

 

The High Court had initially granted an interim injunction on October 12, 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform. When Amazon Technologies did not appear in court, the court confirmed the injunction.

 

During the proceedings, Cloudtail India agreed to accept an injunction decree and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The mediation between the parties, however, failed. The company argued that liability for damages should rest solely with Cloudtail, citing an Amazon brand licence and distribution agreement that placed responsibility for any breaches on Cloudtail.

 

Lifestyle Equities, however, contended that the infringing mark was not covered under this agreement and maintained that both Amazon and Cloudtail should be held liable. A single-judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh ruled that though Cloudtail had admitted liability, Lifestyle was entitled to pursue damages from Amazon as well.

 

The court also recognised Amazon Seller Services’ role as an intermediary and its compliance with judicial directives. Since no substantive relief was sought against it and the company agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products, it was removed from the list of involved parties.