In a major victory for Amazon Technologies, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a Delhi High Court single-judge ruling that had slapped the company with damages exceeding ₹336 crore in a trademark infringement case filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V., the owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand. The apex court upheld the Delhi HC division bench’s July 2025 order, which stayed the earlier decree and flagged significant procedural irregularities in how the case was handled.
Credits: NewsBytes
A Case Rooted in Trademark Turf Wars
The legal battle traces back to 2020, when Lifestyle Equities C.V. — the parent of the globally known BHPC brand — sued Amazon Technologies in the Delhi High Court, accusing the company of trademark infringement. The plaintiff claimed that products listed under Amazon’s private label “Symbol” and by key seller Cloudtail India carried marks that were identical or deceptively similar to BHPC’s iconic horse-and-rider logo.
Lifestyle, along with its licensee, argued that this violated its exclusive rights over the BHPC brand and sought hefty compensation for the alleged misuse.
A ₹336-Crore Shock: The Single-Judge Verdict
In February 2025, a single judge of the Delhi High Court delivered a ruling that stunned Amazon Technologies. The court awarded damages of over ₹336 crore — a massive jump from the ₹2 crore originally sought — for loss of royalties and promotional expenses, along with ₹3.23 crore in costs.
The order also permanently barred Amazon and its affiliates from using the BHPC logo or any similar design on products listed on its marketplace. Since Amazon Technologies did not appear in court, the judge proceeded ex parte — that is, in the company’s absence — citing service of notice through email and WhatsApp as sufficient.
Supreme Court Flags ‘Serious Procedural Flaws’
However, the Supreme Court found this process deeply problematic. The bench observed that Amazon Technologies was not properly served notice and was effectively denied a fair chance to defend itself. The apex court called this a “serious procedural flaw,” stating that the entire case had been carried forward without ensuring that the company was aware of or participating in the proceedings.
Moreover, the Supreme Court took issue with the manner in which damages were drastically escalated from ₹2 crore to ₹336 crore without any formal communication or justification. “Even if it were to be presumed, merely for the sake of argument, that Amazon Technologies took a conscious decision not to participate in the suit proceedings, that cannot justify mulcting it with damages of ₹336 crore,” the bench noted.
Mistaken Identity: Treating All Amazon Entities as One
Another key criticism by the Supreme Court was the single judge’s decision to treat Amazon Technologies and its related entities as a single entity. The court clarified that Amazon Technologies, the US-based subsidiary that holds Amazon’s intellectual property, is distinct from Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., which operates the Indian marketplace. The apex court found no direct evidence linking Amazon Technologies to the alleged infringement.
This distinction, the court emphasized, is crucial — and lumping all Amazon entities together was legally unsound.
Relief at Last: Delhi HC Division Bench and SC Stand with Amazon
After the single-judge order, Amazon appealed before the Delhi High Court’s division bench, arguing that it had not been given a fair trial. In July 2025, the bench stayed the execution of the ₹336 crore decree, citing glaring procedural lapses and the absence of a proper notice process — a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Importantly, the division bench also refused to impose any condition requiring Amazon to deposit the disputed amount during the stay — signaling judicial recognition of the case’s irregularities.
What This Means for Corporate Litigation
The Supreme Court’s verdict not only provides Amazon with crucial relief but also reinforces the judiciary’s stance on procedural fairness and due process. It serves as a reminder that even large corporations cannot be penalized without proper notice and opportunity to defend themselves.
For multinational firms operating in India, the case underscores the importance of clear differentiation between local subsidiaries and global entities — a distinction courts must respect. For Amazon, this decision marks a critical legal win that safeguards its reputation and operational freedom in one of its most important markets.
