The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark judgment against e-commerce giant Amazon, imposing a substantial penalty of ₹340 crore (approximately $39 million) for trademark infringement of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. In a case that began in 2020, the court found that Amazon had deliberately used a logo strikingly similar to BHPC’s distinctive polo player emblem on apparel sold under its private label “Symbol.”
This ruling represents one of the largest damages ever awarded in a trademark infringement case in India and sets a significant precedent for intellectual property protection in the digital marketplace. The court’s decision emphasizes the serious consequences for e-commerce platforms that fail to respect established trademark rights, particularly when operating across multiple business roles.
The Trademark Dispute
The legal battle originated in 2020 when Lifestyle Equities CV, the rightful owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark, filed a lawsuit against Amazon Technologies and its affiliates. The Amsterdam-based company, which has been actively using the BHPC trademark in India since 2007, discovered that Amazon’s private label “Symbol” was selling clothing items featuring a logo nearly identical to BHPC’s distinctive charging polo pony with a mounted rider wielding a raised polo stick. Lifestyle Equities presented evidence to the court showing that the logo used on Amazon’s platform was “nothing but a slavish imitation” of its trademarked BHPC emblem.
The case became more complex with the involvement of Cloudtail India, a key seller on Amazon’s platform, which was also found to be selling these products bearing the infringing logo. During court proceedings, Cloudtail admitted to selling the infringing products between 2015 and July 2020, generating revenue of approximately ₹23.92 lakh with a profit margin of about 20 percent. Despite Cloudtail’s attempt to bear sole responsibility for the infringement, the court determined that both entities were accountable for the violation of Lifestyle Equities’ intellectual property rights.
The most concerning aspect of the infringement was the potential for consumer confusion in the e-commerce environment. The court noted that on online platforms, consumers typically make purchasing decisions based primarily on product images rather than physical examination of the items, making logo recognition particularly significant. Amazon’s products bearing the similar logo were being sold at significantly lower prices—reportedly just 10 percent of the original brand’s cost—further eroding BHPC’s brand equity and market position.
Court’s Findings and the Hefty Penalty Breakdown
After thorough examination of the evidence, Justice Pratibha Singh of the Delhi High Court found Amazon guilty of “deliberate and willful infringement” of the BHPC trademark. The court was particularly critical of Amazon’s conduct during the proceedings, describing it as a “deliberate strategy of obfuscation” aimed at evading liability. Amazon Technologies failed to appear before the court, leading to ex-parte proceedings against the company while simultaneously attempting to “wear different hats—one as an intermediary, one as a retailer, and one as a brand owner”.
The court’s judgment included a comprehensive breakdown of the damages awarded to Lifestyle Equities. The total penalty of approximately ₹340 crore comprised several components: ₹292.70 crore (equivalent to USD 33.78 million) for lost royalties based on business plan sales, ₹43.32 crore (equivalent to USD 5 million) for increased advertising and marketing expenses incurred by the plaintiff, and ₹3.23 crore toward court fees and additional costs. This substantial financial penalty reflects the court’s assessment of the significant harm caused to Lifestyle Equities’ brand value and market position.
In addition to the monetary damages, the Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction restraining Amazon from using the infringing mark, selling, advertising, or dealing in products bearing a logo similar to that of Lifestyle Equities. This injunction represents a significant operational restriction for the e-commerce platform with products that might bear resemblance to the BHPC trademark.
Significance for E-commerce and Intellectual Property Protection in India
This ruling marks a watershed moment for intellectual property protection in the Indian digital marketplace. The substantial damages awarded against a major multinational corporation like Amazon demonstrate the Indian judiciary’s commitment to enforcing trademark rights and protecting brand owners from infringement. The judgment serves as a stark warning to e-commerce platforms about their responsibility to ensure that products sold on their platforms—whether through third-party sellers or their private labels—do not violate established trademark rights.
The case highlights the growing importance of intellectual property awareness in India’s rapidly expanding digital economy. As noted by legal experts, many business owners in India lack a complete understanding of the broad scope of IP protection, particularly regarding trademarks. This judgment clarifies that trademark infringement extends beyond direct copying of a mark to include the use of deceptively similar styles or designs that could mislead consumers.
For e-commerce platforms specifically, the ruling underscores the need for more rigorous compliance mechanisms to prevent intellectual property violations. The court’s finding that Amazon was operating as “a cohesive commercial entity” despite its attempts to differentiate between its various business roles suggests that platforms cannot evade responsibility by simply claiming to be intermediaries when they are actively involved in product selection, branding, and sales.
Amazon’s Response and What Happens Next
As of February 28, 2025, Amazon has not issued an official response to the Delhi High Court’s ruling. The company’s silence on the matter is notable given the substantial financial penalty imposed and the potential implications for its private label business strategy in India. Industry observers will be watching closely to see whether Amazon appeals the decision or adjusts its policies regarding private label products and trademark verification processes.
This case emerges against a backdrop of previous controversies regarding Amazon’s business practices in India. A 2021 Reuters investigation had revealed allegations that Amazon was producing knockoff products and manipulating search results to favor its private labels in the Indian market. The current ruling may prompt renewed scrutiny of Amazon’s approach to intellectual property rights and competition within the e-commerce sector.
For other e-commerce platforms operating in India, this case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous trademark verification for all products listed on their sites, particularly for their private label offerings. The substantial damages awarded to Lifestyle Equities may inspire other trademark owners to pursue legal action against perceived infringements, potentially leading to increased litigation in this area.
