Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Delhi High Court Stays ₹339 Crore Damages Against Amazon | Says No Pleadings For Such Massive Claim In Beverly Hills Polo Club Trademark Suit

Delhi High Court Stays ₹339 Crore Damages Against Amazon | Says No Pleadings For Such Massive Claim In Beverly Hills Polo Club Trademark Suit

Isabella Mariam

 

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, on July 1, 2025, stayed the operation of a judgment dated February 25, 2025, that had imposed a damages decree of ₹336,02,87,000 and costs amounting to ₹3,23,10,966.60 against Amazon Technologies Inc. The court held that the stay would be conditional upon Amazon Technologies Inc. furnishing an undertaking to the Registry that it would comply with the impugned judgment if its appeal were to fail. The court's directive addressed the monetary award exclusively, permitting the appeal to proceed without any requirement to deposit or secure the decreed amount. The Division Bench clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and issued solely for the purposes of disposing of the application for stay.

 

The underlying suit, CS (Comm) 443/2020, was instituted by Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV (together referred to as "Lifestyle") against three defendants: Amazon Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 1), Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 2), and Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 3). The primary reliefs sought included a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' registered trademark "BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB," a rendition of accounts, delivery-up of infringing materials, costs, and damages. The damages claimed in the original plaint were quantified at "₹2,00,05,000/- or any such amount as found due in favour of the plaintiffs." This amount remained unchanged throughout the proceedings as the plaint was never amended to raise the damages claim.

 

Also Read: Fit Case For Furlough Release As Petitioner Has Completed 20 Years Of Uninterrupted Incarceration Without Remission | Supreme Court Orders Three Month Conditional Relief

 

Amazon Technologies Inc. (hereinafter, "Amazon Tech") was proceeded ex parte by an order dated April 20, 2022. Thereafter, on March 2, 2023, the suit was decreed against Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. in the amount of ₹4,78,484. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (ASSPL) was removed from the array of parties as no relief was sought against it. Consequently, following March 2, 2023, Lifestyle remained the sole party appearing before the learned Single Judge up to the delivery of the impugned judgment.

 

The plaintiffs' pleadings alleged that Amazon Tech was, "under its brand 'Symbol', manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which bear the Infringing Logo Mark." It was further stated that ASSPL was "selling and offering for sale products of Defendant No. 1 under the trade mark 'Symbol' bearing the Infringing Logo Mark." The plaintiffs admitted uncertainty about the relationship between the defendants, calling upon them to disclose the same. Products were purchased from ASSPL’s website bearing the infringing mark, but the invoices revealed only Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. as the seller. According to the plaint, Cloudtail and ASSPL had sold infringing goods of Amazon Tech through ASSPL's platform, with fulfilment executed by Cloudtail. Lifestyle asserted that Amazon Tech had adopted the infringing mark to confuse consumers and gain undue advantage.

 

In its replication to Cloudtail’s written statement, Lifestyle claimed that Cloudtail was the manufacturer, supplier, seller, and distributor of the infringing products. Cloudtail, in response, denied adopting the infringing mark, asserting its role was limited to that of a retailer. It maintained that Amazon Tech, Cloudtail, and ASSPL were separate legal entities. An affidavit filed by ASSPL also affirmed that both Amazon Tech and ASSPL were subsidiaries of Amazon.com, Inc.

 

Lifestyle led evidence on damages after Amazon Tech was proceeded ex parte. The evidence included testimonies from Mr. Eli Haddad (PW-1), Mr. Sanjay Shetty (PW-2), Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri (PW-3), Mr. Arvind Dhingra (PW-4), and Mr. Gavin Rawlings (PW-5). The learned Single Judge reserved judgment on July 12, 2024, and delivered the impugned judgment on February 25, 2025.

 

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in its order, scrutinized multiple aspects of the impugned judgment and the proceedings.

 

"There is no averment in the plaint to the effect that Defendant No. 1 was dealing with apparel products under the private label 'Symbol' consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device thereby leading to infringement and unauthorized use," the court recorded while referring to paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. It noted that this position was "specifically acknowledged by learned Counsel for Lifestyle as recorded in the order dated 2 March 2023," and that the license agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail was for the 'SYMBOL' mark, not the infringing device mark.

 

With respect to paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, the court noted that it recorded an appearance by Amazon Tech on September 5, 2022. The Division Bench clarified that "the order of 5 September 2022 was passed after Amazon Tech was already proceeded ex parte on 20 April 2022." It also recorded that the confidentiality club mentioned in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment could not have had the consent of Amazon Tech, as the company had not entered appearance.

 

The Division Bench remarked that the impugned judgment’s findings lacked evidentiary support. It observed, "there is nothing whatsoever, except a concluding observation that Amazon Tech 'was the entity which was responsible for the infringing conduct of Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail) on Defendant No. 3 (ASSPL)’s platform'," and added, "on a complete reading of the impugned judgment that there is, in fact, none [to support this finding."

 

The court found that paragraphs 98 to 101 of the judgment contained "presumptive findings unsupported by any evidence." It stated, "There is no basis for the finding, in para 98, that Amazon Tech had, 'along with Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail)', used the allegedly infringing logo." It recorded that "What the learned Single Judge fails to note is that the apparel, which bore the infringing logo, was not manufactured, or sold, by Amazon Tech, but was manufactured and sold by Defendant 2 Cloudtail, as was admitted by Lifestyle itself in its replication... as well as by Cloudtail itself..."

 

The court expressed concern with findings premised on Amazon Tech’s market presence, stating, "these findings do not, in any manner, indicate that Amazon Tech was responsible, in any way or to any extent, for the affixation of the infringing logo on the apparel sold by Cloudtail."

 

It also noted the absence of any basis for the conclusion that the defendants operated "as a cohesive commercial entity", stating, "It was not even the case of Lifestyle, in its plaint, that Cloudtail and Amazon Tech operated as 'a cohesive commercial entity'."

 

Paragraph 101 was described as "somewhat bemusing," where the learned Single Judge recorded that the licensing agreement gave Amazon Tech control over the trademark usage. The Division Bench held, "This finding of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, ex facie contrary to the evidence on record, and the terms of the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail."

 

Regarding the decree of damages, the Division Bench held: "The Learned Single Judge has awarded, to Lifestyle and against Amazon Tech, humongous damages of ₹336,02,87,000/- without even the whisper of a pleading, claiming the said amount." It further stated, "for the first time, in the written submissions filed before the learned Single Judge after conclusion of arguments, Lifestyle hiked the damages to ₹3780 crores. This was entirely unsupported by pleadings."

 

The court stated the foundational legal principle that, "It is a legal truism that evidence cannot traverse the pleadings." It observed that the decree was based on a computation "solely devised by the learned Single Judge, not pleaded by the parties and unsupported by any pleading on record."

 

The Division Bench found the learned Single Judge's reading of the Licensing Agreement to be erroneous. It noted, "[The agreement] is restricted to the 'SYMBOL' mark, owned by Amazon Tech" and "makes no reference to the said [infringing] mark at all." Consequently, it recorded, "Cloudtail did not affix the mark on the apparel sold by it... by virtue of any authorisation or permission granted by the Licensing Agreement dated 23 December 2015."

 

The court stated the significance of the order dated March 2, 2023, which the impugned judgment had not properly accounted for. It stated, "Once, therefore, by order dated 2 March 2023, the suit stood decreed against Cloudtail ₹4,78,484/-, no separate decree for damages could have been passed against Amazon Tech, inasmuch as no independent act of infringement has been alleged, against Amazon Tech, apart from the infringement alleged to have been committed by Cloudtail."

 

Finally, the Division Bench questioned the very basis of proceeding ex parte against Amazon Tech. It observed, "no summons in the suit were ever served on Amazon Tech," and concluded, "This, by itself, is a lapse serious enough to vitiate all proceedings in the suit after 20 April 2022, at least insofar as the appellant Amazon Tech is concerned."

 

The High Court of Delhi issued directions staying the judgment dated February 25, 2025. It stated that the stay shall apply specifically to the monetary relief granted by the impugned judgment. The court recorded: "Operation of the judgment dated 25 February 2025... awarding damages of Rs. 336,02,87,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,23,10,966.60/- against the appellant-Amazon Technologies Inc., is stayed."

 

The court clarified that the stay was conditional upon Amazon Tech furnishing an undertaking. It recorded: "This stay shall be subject to an undertaking being furnished by the appellant-Amazon Technologies Inc., to the Registry of this Court, within a period of two weeks... to comply with the impugned judgment dated 25 February 2025, in the event of its appeal failing."

 

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Bail In POCSO Case | Bail Once Granted Cannot Be Cancelled Just For Asking | Supervisory Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked For Grave Error

 

The court further held that "any part of the amount decreed shall be required to be deposited or secured" by Amazon Tech for the stay to operate.

 

In allowing the application, CM Appl 26455/2025, the court stated the provisional nature of its findings. It recorded: "It is clarified that the observations and findings contained in this judgment are intended to be prima facie only, for the purposes of disposing of the present application for stay, and shall not bind the Court in deciding the main appeal."

 

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Devvrat Joshi, Mr. Angad S Makkar, Ms. Ira Mahajan, Ms. Pritha Suri, and Mr. Agnish Aditya, Advs.

For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Mr. J. Sai. Deepak and Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma, Mr. Aditya Goel, Mrs. Namrata Sinha and Mr. Love Virvani, Advs.

 

Case Title: Amazon Technologies Inc. v. Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5036-DB

Case Number: RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul

 

Comment / Reply From