Lifestyle Equities challenges stay on ₹340 crore award against Amazon before Supreme Court
UK-based fashion brand Lifestyle Equities CV has approached the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court Division Bench order that stayed the enforcement of a ₹340 crore ($39 million) damages award against Amazon Technologies in a trademark infringement dispute. [Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon Technologies Inc]
The top court is scheduled to hear the case on Monday, July 28.
The suit stems from a 2020 complaint filed by Lifestyle Equities alleging infringement of its Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark. The company had claimed that products sold under Amazon’s private label "Symbol" on Amazon.in featured logos deceptively similar to its registered BHPC marks. It also named Cloudtail India, a key seller on the platform, as a defendant.
In October 2020, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark. While Cloudtail eventually admitted liability and disclosed sales of approximately ₹24 lakh from such products, Amazon Technologies failed to enter appearance and was proceeded against ex parte.
A single-judge of the High Court subsequently ruled in favour 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 this 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 awarded $5 million in damages for corrective advertising and brand rehabilitation, and $33.78 million (₹292.7 crore) for lost royalties, in addition to litigation costs. The total amount payable by Amazon was quantified at around ₹340 crore.
However, on July 1, a Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul stayed the single-judge order. The Bench held that Amazon had not been properly served summons before being proceeded against ex parte, thereby raising concerns of due process.
Further, the Division Bench noted that the original suit claimed only ₹2 crore in damages and that no amended pleadings or formal applications had been filed to justify the award of ₹336 crore.
“At no stage of the proceedings did the plaintiffs ever claim the awarded amount of ₹336,02,87,000,” the Bench observed.
It also found that the single-judge had not made any specific finding on Amazon’s direct role in affixing or authorising the use of the infringing mark, but had instead drawn inferences based on Amazon’s market position and agreements with Cloudtail.