On 25 February 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. in their trademark infringement suit, Lifestyle Equities CV & ANR. v. Amazon Technologies, INC. & ORS. The Court held that Amazon's private label 'Symbol' used a horse-rider logo deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) mark, leading to consumer confusion and brand dilution.
Facts of the case
The Plaintiffs, owners of the BHPC trademark, alleged that Amazon Technologies (Defendant No.1) was selling apparel under its private label Symbol, using a horse-rider logo nearly identical to their mark. These products were distributed by Cloudtail (Defendant No.2) and sold on Amazon India (Defendant No.3). The Plaintiffs discovered the infringement in May 2020, but the Defendants had been selling the infringing products since 2015. The suit sought a permanent injunction and damages, citing economic losses, brand dilution, and unfair competition.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
The Plaintiffs asserted that the BHPC mark is well-known, and its horse-rider logo enjoys global recognition. They also emphasized that there is a striking similarity between the Symbol logo and BHPC, which was a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers.
Defendants' Arguments
Cloudtail admitted liability and agreed to a permanent injunction and damages of ₹4,78,484. However, it argued that Amazon Technologies had no direct role in the infringement.
Amazon Technologies did not appear and was proceeded ex parte, effectively conceding the claims.
Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No.3) contended that it was merely an intermediary and had removed all listings containing the infringing mark.
Findings of the Court
The Court applied the 'Triple Identity Test' to assess trademark infringement, concluding that the marks, goods, and trade channels were identical, thereby establishing a clear case of infringement. It held that Amazon Technologies, as the owner of the Symbol brand, was responsible for the infringing conduct of Cloudtail on Amazon India and could not disclaim liability.
The Court noted that Amazon Technologies did not appear before the Hon'ble Court despite having knowledge of the suit. The Court observed that this approach indicated an intent to withhold crucial information rather than participate fully in the proceedings.
The Court observed that Amazon Technologies' significant presence in the e-commerce sector and noted that its market position allows it to influence pricing and competition. It further observed that the substantial discounts applied to products featuring a similar mark or logo could affect the BHPC brand's positioning. The Court also took into account that the infringing products were being sold at just 10% of BHPC's retail price, which could have implications for the brand's value and consumer perception.
Given these factors, the Court imposed damages on Amazon Technologies to the tune of $38.78 million.
MHCO Comments
This judgment marks a significant milestone in e-commerce trademark enforcement, reaffirming that brand owners cannot evade liability by structuring their business through licensing arrangements. It provides much-needed clarity on the multi-faceted roles of e-commerce platforms, which often operate as intermediaries, retailers, and brand owners simultaneously. By addressing how these overlapping roles are used to shift responsibility, the ruling strengthens accountability in trademark infringement cases, ensuring that e-commerce platforms cannot use complex business models to circumvent trademark infringement.
This article was released on 28 February 2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
