Delhi HC pauses Rs 340 crore trademark blow to Amazon in Beverly Hills Polo Club dispute
The division bench, led by Justice Hari Shankar, put a temporary hold on both the damages and legal costs imposed by the earlier single-judge ruling, while allowing Amazon time to comply with remaining directions from that order.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Delhi High Court has stayed a previous order that had directed the e-commerce giant to pay Rs 340 crore in damages to Lifestyle Equities over alleged trademark infringement involving the ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ brand. The division bench, led by Justice Hari Shankar, put a temporary hold on both the damages and legal costs imposed by the earlier single-judge ruling, while allowing Amazon time to comply with remaining directions from that order.
This development comes after Amazon challenged the February ruling issued by Justice Prathiba M Singh, which accused the company of selling and advertising products bearing marks deceptively similar to the well-known luxury brand. The original judgment found that Amazon’s platform offered lookalike products at lower prices, potentially misleading consumers and harming Lifestyle’s brand value.
Lifestyle Equities and Lifestyle Licensing, owners of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark in India since 2007, argued that the brand enjoys considerable goodwill globally and across categories such as apparel, accessories, eyewear and bags.
Amazon, in its appeal, asserted that the earlier order lacked substantial evidence to support claims of infringement and raised broader questions about how liability is assigned to platforms in trademark disputes, especially when sellers operate independently within marketplace ecosystems.
The stay order marks a temporary breather for Amazon in what is shaping up to be a precedent-setting battle in India’s digital commerce and intellectual property landscape. With billions at stake and marketplace accountability under legal scrutiny, the case could have wider ramifications for platform liability, brand protection, and the boundaries of e-commerce responsibility.
