The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by UK-based fashion brand Lifestyle Equities CV, which had sought to vacate the stay imposed by the Delhi High Court Division Bench on an order directing Amazon Technologies Inc. to pay Rs 340 crore in damages for alleged trademark infringement of the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) brand.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan rejected the plea, stating that “the dismissal of this plea will not come in the way of Delhi High Court’s Division Bench hearing the case on merits.” The Court added that the reasons for its dismissal would follow in a subsequent order.
The dispute stems from a 2020 complaint filed by Lifestyle Equities, which alleged that products sold under Amazon’s private label, Symbol, on Amazon.in featured logos deceptively similar to its registered BHPC marks. Cloudtail India, a key seller on the platform, was also named as a defendant.
In October 2020, the Delhi High Court had granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark. While Cloudtail eventually admitted liability and disclosed sales of approximately Rs24 lakh from such products, Amazon Technologies did not enter an appearance and was proceeded against ex parte.
A single-judge of the Delhi High Court subsequently ruled in favor of Lifestyle Equities, holding Amazon liable for trademark infringement. The Court found that Amazon’s brand license and distribution agreement with Cloudtail allowed extensive use of Amazon’s marks and branding, and that the commercial relationship went beyond that of a neutral intermediary. Accordingly, the Court held Amazon accountable for the infringing products listed and sold through its platform.
The judgment had awarded $5 million in damages for corrective advertising and brand rehabilitation, and $33.78 million (Rs292.7 crore) for lost royalties, in addition to litigation costs. The total amount payable by Amazon was quantified at around Rs340 crore.
However, on July 1, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul stayed the single-judge order. The Bench held that Amazon had not properly served summons before being proceeded against ex parte, raising due process concerns. The Bench further noted:
“At no stage of the proceedings did the plaintiffs ever claim the awarded amount of Rs336,02,87,000.”
It also observed that the original suit had claimed only Rs2 crore in damages and that no amended pleadings had been filed to justify the Rs336 crore award. The Bench highlighted that the single-judge had not made any specific finding on Amazon’s direct role in affixing or authorizing the use of the infringing mark but had drawn inferences based on Amazon’s market position and agreements with Cloudtail.
Lifestyle Equities was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Gaurav Pachnanda along with a team of advocates from Sim & San. Amazon Technologies was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, and Arvind Nigam, assisted by a team from Sai Krishna and Associates.
