Introduction
On July 1, 2025, the Delhi High Court passed a significant order 1staying the execution of a ₹336 crore (approx. USD 38.8 million) decree awarded against Amazon Technologies Inc. in a trademark infringement suit initiated by Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV—entities associated with the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) brand.
This stay comes in appeal against the February 25, 2025 judgment2, where a Single Judge of the High Court held Amazon liable for trademark infringement. The earlier decision applied the “triple identity” test and found that Amazon had played an active role—not merely as an intermediary—based on its private-label “Symbol” branding and its failure to act on known infringement. We covered the Single Judge’s ruling in detail in our earlier article, which can be accessed here.
The Origins of the Dispute
The plaintiffs alleged that products sold on Amazon India’s platform bore marks deceptively similar to the BHPC logo—a polo player on horseback. These products were allegedly sold under the “Symbol” label, Amazon’s private-label clothing brand, by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Cloudtail). Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (ASSPL), which operates Amazon.in, was originally a party but was later removed from the case.
When the suit was filed in October 2020, Lifestyle estimated its damages at approximately ₹2 crore and paid court fees accordingly. However, what unfolded in court proceedings took an unexpected and arguably improper turn, ultimately prompting the Division Bench to step in.
A One-Sided Trial: How Amazon Technologies Was Never Heard
The trial proceeded without Amazon, even though it was named as Defendant No. 1. Summons were attempted via email, WhatsApp, and international courier, but no valid service through official channels was completed. The process fee for issuance of summons via the High Court Registry was filed late, and ultimately, in April 2022, the court ordered Amazon to be proceeded against ex parte due to non-appearance.
Following this, Cloudtail (Defendant No. 2) accepted that it had used the allegedly infringing logo from 2015 to 2020, revealed its sales figures, and submitted to a decree. The Single Judge granted ₹4.78 lakhs in damages against Cloudtail and passed a permanent injunction. ASSPL, having complied with prior orders and not being the focus of any remaining relief, was removed from the suit.
This left Amazon as the sole defendant in the case, but it remained unrepresented. Lifestyle led oral and documentary evidence, including video testimony from a UK-based witness, and filed final written arguments. There was no rebuttal, no cross-examination, and no defence presented by Amazon—turning the proceedings entirely one-sided from that point forward.
An Escalation of the Claim and Breach of Natural Justice
The Division Bench was sharply critical of the procedural irregularities, particularly the sudden, massive escalation of damages. Although Lifestyle had consistently claimed ₹2 crore in damages throughout pleadings, it raised its demand to a staggering ₹3,780 crore in its final written submissions—without amending the plaint or paying additional court fees.
This revised figure was never formally pleaded, nor was Amazon notified or granted any opportunity to contest the new claim. Despite this, the Single Judge awarded ₹336 crore in damages based solely on those submissions and unchallenged evidence.
The Division Bench found this to be a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The court stressed that civil procedure mandates that damages must be pleaded with specificity and substantiated with evidence. Any substantial change in the claimed amount requires formal amendment of pleadings and procedural compliance, including notice to the opposite party.
Imposing a financial liability of this magnitude on an unserved, unrepresented party—without opportunity to respond—was, in the court’s view, fundamentally unjust and procedurally untenable.
The Weakness of the Case Against Amazon Technologies
Beyond the procedural defects, the appellate court also found substantive flaws in the case against Amazon. The plaintiffs had alleged that the infringing goods were sold under the “Symbol” brand, supposedly linked to Amazon. However, the plaint did not clearly allege that Amazon affixed the infringing logo to the products or approved its use.
The plaintiffs themselves admitted uncertainty regarding the internal relationships between Amazon, Cloudtail, and ASSPL. Invoices were issued by Cloudtail, which also admitted to using the disputed mark—yet this mark was not part of the Symbol brand or mentioned in the License Agreement between Cloudtail and Amazon.
The Division Bench noted that the licence agreement contained no clause permitting Cloudtail to use the infringing logo, and that Cloudtail had in fact confirmed it acted independently in using the mark. This was also acknowledged in the earlier decree against Cloudtail, which awarded modest damages of ₹4.78 lakhs. The ₹336 crore award against Amazon was granted without resolving these internal inconsistencies, raising serious concerns.
The court reiterated that liability—particularly of such magnitude—must be founded on clear pleadings, evidence, and proper attribution of responsibility. Mere association with a trademark or business structure is insufficient.no discharge of this burden.
The Stay Order and Its Implications for Trademark Litigation
The Division Bench determined that this was an uncommon and exceptional situation that warranted a full stay of the Single Judge’s ruling in light of these unique features. Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, which permits appellate courts to halt the implementation of orders under specific conditions, was used to grant the stay. Generally, unless the appellant provides a security deposit or convinces the court that irreparable harm might result, the court will not impose a complete stay on money decrees. But in this instance, the court determined that the ruling was so seriously defective that no such requirements ought to be applicable.
The court recognized that it is quite uncommon to give a full stay of a monetary decision without even requesting security. Nonetheless, it made clear that fairness must take precedence when a ruling is issued against natural justice, without adequate service, without legitimate petitions, and without giving the defendant a real chance to be heard. The Supreme Court’s decision in Malwa Strips v. Jyoti Ltd., which found that such broad relief might be granted in exceptional circumstances when justified by the facts, was one of the precedents the court cited.
Amazon Technologies Inc.’s appeal will now be considered on its merits. The High Court has set October 09, 2025 as the date for in-depth arguments. The verdict and decree awarded ₹336 crores in damages remain frozen till that time.
Our Brief Analysis and Conclusion
- Procedural lapse = fatal. The Bench stayed the ₹336 cr decree chiefly because Lifestyle hiked damages from ₹2 cr to ₹3,780 cr in written submissions without amending the plaint or serving Amazon.
- Ex-parte shortcut backfired. Poor service and a one-sided trial meant Amazon never got to contest liability; the stay signals courts will undo such wins.
- Platform liability needs proof. Mere ownership of the “Symbol” label didn’t link Amazon Technologies to Cloudtail’s infringing logo—control and authorisation must be pleaded and proved.
In conclusion, expect stricter scrutiny of headline-grabbing damages and ex-parte IP decrees. Plaintiffs must get service and pleadings right; defendants should watch dockets to avoid default. Due process, not scale, decides enforceability.