Delhi HC stays order asking Amazon to pay ₹340 cr to apparel brand in trademark case

The single judge concluded that the horse device logo, goods and the trade channels were identical to Lifestyler’s BHPC logo

The Delhi high court on Tuesday stayed a single judge bench’s order directing e-commerce giant Amazon to pay ₹340 crore damages to Amsterdam-based apparel brand Lifestyle Equities in a trademark infringement suit.

Amazon’s appeal will be next heard on October 19. (Delhi HC website)

The verdict was passed by a bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul.

The court passed the verdict in the e-commerce giant’s application seeking a stay of Justice Prathiba M Singh’s February 25 ruling. The application was preferred in Amazon’s appeal against the verdict in which Justice Singh had concluded that Amazon had infringed upon Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark, and its actions amounted to “blatant infringement” in the e-commerce space.

The 85-page ruling noted that Amazon had licensed the use of its brand “SYMBOL”- consisting of a horse device mark, to Cloudtail India Private Limited, by way of Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement and the same indicated that the e-commerce giant retained significant control over Cloudtail’s branding and distribution activities.

The single judge concluded that the horse device logo, goods and the trade channels were identical to Lifestyler’s BHPC logo as she stated, “While licensing the word mark SYMBOL, Amazon would be unable to distance itself from the use of the accompanying horse logo device mark.”

In its petition before the division bench, the e-commerce giant represented by senior advocate Arvind Nigam and Neeraj Kishan Kaul had asserted that the order was passed ex-parte, without granting it an opportunity of hearing. Nigam further submitted that Lifestyle in its suit before the single bench had failed to provide any evidence regarding his client’s wrongdoing, but the single judge found wrongdoing on his client’s part. Kaul submitted that his client was only a repository of its trademarks, only lent the same for use to authorised owners and was not involved in manufacturing T-shirts.

Lifestyle represented by senior advocate Gaurav Pachnanda had argued that Amazon had full knowledge of the proceedings and cannot argue that the order was passed “ex-parte” (without hearing the other side) since they chose not to appear despite issuance of summons. Pachnanda further argued that the court had the power to grant conditional stay, despite the order being passed ex-parte.

The court while reserving verdict in Amazon’s stay application on May 7 had opined that the trial before the single judge was “one sided” since it proceeded behind Amazon’s back considering the version given by Lifestyle as “gospel truth”.

The bench said, “It’s an extremely strange situation. We’re dealing with a situation whether he (Amazon) should be asked to submit security. It’s not even adversarial. It’s one sided. He (Amazon) proceeded ex parte. You (lifestyle) are all alone in the world, in the absence of any defendant, plaintiff (lifestyle) alone proceeds on the matter & gets a decree of ₹340 crore. It’s just your version before the single judge for whatever reason. It’s just your version before the single judge which is treated as gospel truth,” the bench told Pachnanda. It added, “You (Lifestyle) are the ancient mariners. The fact of the matter is at this stage, it’s a case where the entire trial has proceeded behind their (Amazon’s) back. It’s a completely one sided trial. It’s not just the question of whether they were absent, but it’s also based on the material on which they had no opportunity to…. (prove evidence against them)”

Amazon’s appeal will be next heard on October 19.