top of page
Search

TMT CASE LAW - Lifestyle Equities CV vs Amazon Technologies, Inc. and Others.

  • Writer: Shreya Gupta
    Shreya Gupta
  • 6 hours ago
  • 5 min read

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28 February 2025



BRIEF FACTS

This case was filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V. (“LECV”) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (“LLBV”), inter alia, seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant No.1”), Cloudtail India Private Limited (“Defendant No.2”), and Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (“Defendant No.3”) before the Delhi High Court, for infringement of their registered trademark Beverly Hills Polo Club (“BHPC”). It was the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants were unlawfully and deceptively using a mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' BHPC trademark, thereby violating their statutory and common law rights.

 

The plaintiffs, owners of the BHPC trademark, alleged that Defendant No. 1 (brand owner of ‘Symbol’) was selling apparel under its private label ‘Symbol’, using a horse-rider logo nearly identical and deceptively similar to their registered BHPC mark. These products were distributed by Defendant No. 2 (retailer selling infringing products) and sold on Defendant No. 3 website (intermediary operating the website).

The plaintiffs contended that the unauthorised use of their BHPC trademark resulted in consumer confusion, brand dilution, and loss of market goodwill, thus causing significant financial and reputational damage to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from further infringing activities and demanded compensatory and punitive damages for loss of business, goodwill, and brand dilution.


LEGAL ISSUES


The main legal issues as addressed by the Hon’ble High Court in this case are as follows:


  1. Trademark Infringement: Whether Amazon Technologies Inc. and its affiliates infringed upon the plaintiffs' registered BHPC trademark by manufacturing, distributing, and selling products bearing a logo on its “Symbol” deceptively similar to the BHPC mark.


  2. Liability of e-commerce platforms: Whether Amazon Technologies Inc., Cloudtail India Private Limited, and Amazon Seller Services Private Limited could be held liable for trademark infringement, given their roles as brand owner, distributor, and marketplace operator, respectively.


  3. E-infringement: Whether the conduct of the defendants amounted to "e-infringement," a term recognized by the Court to mean trademark infringement occurring in the digital and e-commerce context.


  4. What should be the quantum of monetary compensation payable to the plaintiffs for the infringement of their trademark rights?


HIGH COURT’S PROCEEDINGS AND FINDINGS


The key findings of the High Court are enumerated as below:


  1. Trademark Infringement - The Delhi High Court relied on the ‘Triple Identity Test’ for determining whether trademark infringement has taken place or not. As per the ‘Triple Identity Test’, the High Court observed that-

    • the Symbol logo was nearly identical to the BHPC mark;

    • the infringing marks were being used on identical goods (i.e., apparel); and

    • the trade/consumer channels were identical.

    and hence, the High Court was of the view that it was a case of trademark infringement. 


  2. E- infringement - The Delhi High Court, introduced the concept of e-infringement, stating that the rise of e-commerce has given rise to a new species of infringement leading to novel legal complexities for IP owners in their efforts to enforce their rights and seek redress for trademark infringement. It was emphasised by the Court that e-commerce platforms operate within a multi-tiered ecosystem, where multiple parties are involved, such as the owner of the infringing brand, the retailer/seller selling the infringing product, the e-commerce platform, third party entities involved in warehousing, packaging logistics, the party supplying the product, i.e., the infringing the goods, often making it difficult to identify and hold liable those responsible for violations. Such cases pose challenges in affixing responsibility on each party since it involves complex questions regarding intermediary liability, safe harbor protection, and jurisdictional issues.


  3. No safe harbor for closely connected companies - The Delhi High Court observed that Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 are closely related and interlinked entities who are trying to portray themselves as separate entities to evade liability. The license agreement between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No. 2, clearly shows that Defendant No.1 retains significant control over Defendant No. 2, branding, and distribution activities. All the defendants belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity. The Court also noted that Defendant No. 1 is directly liable for infringement since it retains control over the trademark usage, licensing, and distribution of the infringing mark, and the license agreement demonstrates direct commercial and operative nexus between the 3 defendants, and thus Defendant No.1 cannot escape liability under the guise of being a mere intermediary.


  4. The High Court emphasised that e-commerce platforms, even when asserting intermediary status, must bear responsibility when they enable the unauthorized sale of counterfeit or infringing goods.

HIGH COURT’S DECISION

The High Court recognised this as a clear case of online trademark infringement. The Court held that the ‘Symbol’ brand belonged to Amazon Technologies Inc., which had licensed it to Cloudtail under an official agreement. The agreement showed that Amazon Technologies Inc. had significant control over how the brand was used and sold by Cloudtail, making it responsible for any trademark violations. The Court also found that the three elements of the ‘Triple Identity Test’ were fulfilled. Based on this, Amazon Technologies Inc. was held liable for trademark infringement done by Cloudtail on Amazon’s platform.

 

The Delhi High Court passed a permanent injunction order against Amazon Technologies Inc., restraining Defendant No. 1 from using any logo, mark, or design that might create confusion concerning BHPC’s branding. It also awarded LECV, a total of INR 339.25 crore (approximately $39 million) in damages and costs against Amazon Technologies Inc. This included compensatory damages, additional amounts for increased advertising and promotional expenses, and litigation costs.

 

Cloudtail India was ordered to pay INR 4.78 lakh, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing sales.

As an intermediary, Amazon Seller Services complied with the Court’s directions to remove the infringing products and was not subjected to further relief.

OUR OBSERVATION

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities CV vs Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Others marks a landmark ruling in Indian trademark law, reinforcing the accountability of e-commerce platforms for IP violations on their sites and setting a precedent for future disputes in the digital marketplace.

 

The judgement is notable for holding a leading e-commerce platform directly accountable for trademark infringement, even when the infringing products are sold by third-party sellers. The Court made it clear that platforms cannot shield themselves behind intermediary status if they neglect to address complaints and contribute to the facilitation of such infringement. Thus, e-commerce platforms cannot avoid liability for trademark infringement simply by claiming intermediary status, particularly when they fail to take appropriate action against infringing listings after receiving notification.

 


In case of feedback, suggestions, or queries, please reach out to the C&M team on


 

bottom of page