Read Time: 09 minutes
The court highlighted, “E-commerce platforms, while making products and services more easily available and accessible have also posed significant challenges for IP owners seeking to protect their brands and marks being infringed through online platforms”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, in a trademark infringement suit filed by Lifestyle Equities for their registered trademark Beverly Hills Polo Club remarked that the expansion of e-commerce has become an irreversible reality, leading to the emergence of a new form of infringement, referred to as ‘e-infringement’.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held, “The proliferation of e-commerce is now here to stay and is an irreversible reality, giving rise to a new species of infringement which can be termed as ‘e-infringement”.
The Plaintiffs, Lifestyle Equities C.V. (LECV) and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. (LLBV) filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against Amazon Technologies (Amazon) for infringing their registered trademark, Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). They claimed ownership of the BHPC mark, which enjoyed substantial goodwill in domestic and international markets. Amazon allegedly used an identical or deceptively similar mark, violating the Plaintiffs' statutory and common law rights.
The Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon sold apparel under the private label ‘Symbol’ with a horse device mark nearly identical to the BHPC logo while defendant No.2, Cloudtail India, acted as the retailer.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, representing BHPC, relied on the Plaintiffs’ Trademark License Agreement (TLA) dated November 26, 2012, expert witness statements, and legal precedents to establish damages. He argued that large-scale infringement and deep discounting harmed the brand. The Plaintiffs’ products, priced at ₹3,000–₹5,000, were sold on Amazon for ₹300–₹400. Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda sought punitive damages, citing Amazon’s habitual infringement and relevant legal precedents.
The court observed that trademark rights were traditionally violated in physical stores, where infringers could be easily identified. However, the growth of the internet and digital commerce significantly transformed the sale and promotion of branded goods, presenting both opportunities and challenges for intellectual property (IP) owners. Unlike conventional retailers, e-commerce platforms complicated trademark enforcement by allowing multiple parties to engage in infringement while asserting intermediary status to limit their liability.
The court outlined that, “In this species of infringement, unlike traditional forms of trademark violations, there are multiple parties who could be involved in the violation of rights: a) The owner of the infringing brand which is being used on the product. b) The retailer or seller who is selling the infringing product. c) The e-commerce platform which is enabling the retailer to sell the product or the aggregator who may be collecting similar products and making them available for sale. d) The party/entity who is warehousing, raising invoices, packaging, delivering and receiving payments for the product. e) The party who supplies the product, i.e. the infringing goods. f) Finally, the brand being used on the infringing products”.
The court further opined that “In e-infringement, the biggest challenge would first be in fixing responsibility on each of the parties. There are complex questions which arise including issues relating to intermediary liability, entitlement to safe harbour protection, as also jurisdictional issues. Clearly, the multi-layered nature of ecommerce has made it increasingly difficult to identify, attribute liability, and effectively enforce IP rights, necessitating clear legal frameworks to address the evolving challenges posed by online trademark infringement”.
Furthermore, the court noted that the defendants attempted to distance themselves to evade liability, despite their interconnections. The ownership of the BHPC trademark and the infringement through a similar logo were established, warranting legal protection for the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 acknowledged liability by depositing the awarded damages.
The trademark license, liability, and intellectual property protection clauses in the Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 demonstrated Amazon’s substantial control over Cloudtail’s branding and distribution. The court found that these clauses undermined Amazon’s ability to dissociate itself from Cloudtail’s alleged trademark infringement. Contractual restrictions on unauthorized trademark use and indemnification obligations provided strong legal grounds for the plaintiffs to argue Amazon’s direct involvement in the infringement.
As a licensor under the agreement, the court opined that Amazon bore liability for any unlawful use by its licensee, Cloudtail. By licensing the word mark SYMBOL, Amazon could not disassociate itself from the use of the horse logo.
Consequently, the court held that the liability for infringement rested upon Amazon. The court observed that the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding their inter se relationship.
The court, therefore, issued a permanent injunction against the defendants and granted $38.78 million of damages to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda with Advocates Sidhant Goel, Mohit Goel, Deepankar Mishra, Abhishek Kotnala, Karmanya Dev Sharma, Avni Sharma, Vivek Pratap Singh and Jyotika JainCase Title: Lifestyle Equities v Amazon Technologies (2025:DHC:1231)
Please Login or Register
