The Indian intellectual property (IP) landscape witnessed a seismic shift when the Delhi High Court ordered Amazon Technologies Inc. to pay nearly ₹340 crore (USD 39 million) in damages for infringing on the trademark of Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC). This unprecedented ruling has set a new benchmark for how courts in India handle trademark disputes in e-commerce.
This article explores the background of the Amazon–BHPC case, how the damages were calculated, and the general principles courts follow when awarding damages in IP infringement cases.
Background of the Amazon–BHPC Trademark Dispute
The plaintiffs in the case were Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., the legitimate owners of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark in India since 2007. Their grievance arose when products sold under Amazon’s private label, Symbol, began using a horse-and-rider logo that bore striking similarities to the BHPC emblem.
Why the Dispute Emerged
- Likelihood of confusion: The similarity in logos created the risk of consumers mistaking Symbol products for BHPC’s, diluting the brand’s exclusivity.
- E-commerce dominance: With Amazon being one of the largest online marketplaces in India, the scope of potential damage to BHPC’s brand value was immense.
- Multiple roles of Amazon: Amazon was not only acting as a platform provider but also as a brand owner and retailer through its private label. This blurred line became central to the court’s reasoning.
Interim Orders and Admissions
- In October 2020, the court issued an interim injunction, directing Amazon and its entities to stop using the infringing logo.
- In March 2023, Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd, a key Amazon seller partner, admitted infringement and settled the matter by paying about ₹4.78 lakh (~USD 5,500).
- Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd (ASSPL), Amazon’s marketplace arm, was granted safe harbor under the IT Act once it complied with takedown requests.
However, Amazon Technologies Inc.—the defendant that owned the infringing Symbol brand—failed to appear in court, leading to ex parte proceedings.
Court’s Legal Reasoning
The Delhi High Court applied the triple identity test, finding infringement on three grounds:
- Similarity of marks: Amazon’s Symbol logo was “hardly distinguishable” from BHPC’s iconic polo player logo.
- Similarity of goods: Both logos were used for apparel, a directly overlapping category.
- Similarity of trade channel: Both were marketed and sold on Amazon India.
The court also introduced the concept of “e-infringement” to address modern challenges in online marketplaces. Unlike traditional brick-and-mortar scenarios, e-commerce platforms often wear multiple hats—as intermediary, retailer, and brand owner—making liability more complex.
In this case, Amazon was found to be more than a neutral intermediary. Its control over branding, distribution, and private labels meant it bore direct liability for infringement.
General Grounds for Calculating Damages in Indian IP Infringement
Indian courts have, over time, refined principles for awarding damages in IP disputes. The BHPC case showcases key factors:
A. Types of Damages
- Actual Loss / Lost Profits
- Courts assess direct financial loss to the rights-holder, including decline in sales or profits due to infringement.
- Reasonable Royalty
- Used when actual loss cannot be reliably quantified. Courts estimate compensation based on license rates usually agreed between parties.
- Additional Expenses
- Costs incurred to mitigate reputational harm, such as advertising or enhanced branding efforts.
- Punitive or Exemplary Damages
- Aimed at deterring “malicious” or deliberate infringements. Awardable at the court’s discretion.
B. Factors Influencing Quantum
- Strength of Evidence: Detailed sales records, financial statements, license agreements, expert testimonies strengthen claims.
- Intentionality: Courts may enhance damages if the infringement is deliberate, systematic, or malicious.
- Ease of Access to Data: If infringing party fails to provide evidence, courts may rely solely on plaintiffs’ estimates.
- Licensing Benchmark: Pre-existing royalty agreements between licensor/licensee are persuasive guides.
- Costs Incurred: Documented expenses to restore brand goodwill or market position may be compensated.
C. Notable Case Law & Principles
- The Delhi HC referenced Strix Ltd v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd, supporting the use of a reasonable royalty basis where actual loss data is unavailable.
- The concept of e‑infringement also broadens liability frameworks in digital commerce, allowing courts to pierce intermediary shields when platform entities control branding/distribution.
How the Court Calculated Damages
The most remarkable feature of this case was the record-breaking damages awarded to BHPC. Let’s break down how the court arrived at the figure of ₹336 crore in compensatory damages, plus ₹3.23 crore in legal costs.
1. Lost Royalties (₹280+ crore / USD 33.78 million)
The court examined BHPC’s existing licensing agreement with its Indian licensee, which set a 7.5% royalty on gross sales. Since Amazon refused to disclose sales data, the court accepted BHPC’s projections and expert reports. Using these figures, it estimated the royalties that BHPC would have earned had the Symbol products been legitimately licensed.
2. Advertising and Promotional Costs (₹40+ crore / USD 5 million)
The court recognized that brand dilution forces rights-holders to invest heavily in marketing and promotional activities to restore their reputation. It therefore awarded additional damages to cover the cost of offsetting consumer confusion caused by Amazon’s infringement.
3. Litigation Costs (₹3.23 crore)
Beyond compensatory damages, the court also ordered Amazon to pay litigation expenses incurred by BHPC during the lengthy proceedings.
Principles for Calculating Damages in IP Infringement in India
The Amazon–BHPC case highlights how Indian courts assess damages in trademark and copyright disputes. Generally, damages are categorized into the following:
A. Actual Damages / Lost Profits
Courts attempt to calculate the direct financial loss to the rights-holder. This can include:
- Reduction in sales due to confusion.
- Loss of market share.
- Lower royalties that would have been earned under legitimate licensing.
B. Reasonable Royalty
When exact figures are unavailable, courts rely on the reasonable royalty principle. This means they estimate damages based on what the infringer would have paid if they had entered into a legitimate licensing agreement.
In this case, BHPC’s 7.5% royalty clause became the guiding standard.
C. Reputational Loss and Additional Costs
IP infringement often damages brand reputation and forces the brand to spend more on advertising to maintain its market standing. Courts may award damages to cover these additional costs, as they did in the Amazon case.
D. Punitive or Exemplary Damages
If infringement is deliberate and malicious, courts may impose punitive damages to deter future misconduct. While the Amazon case primarily involved compensatory damages, the court emphasized the “deliberate and willful” nature of the infringement.
Precedent Value of the Amazon–BHPC Ruling
The Delhi High Court’s judgment has far-reaching consequences:
- E-commerce liability clarified: Platforms can no longer shield themselves behind intermediary status if they act as active participants in branding and selling.
- Strengthened IP enforcement: The ruling signals that courts are willing to impose serious financial consequences for deliberate infringement.
- Encouragement for brand owners: Smaller brands may now feel empowered to challenge big players in court, knowing the judiciary can enforce damages robustly.
- Introduction of “e-infringement”: This new doctrine could guide future cases where the roles of e-commerce giants are blurred.
Broader Implications for Businesses
- For E-commerce Platforms: This case serves as a warning that private-label strategies must be handled with extreme caution. Trademark clearance and compliance checks are non-negotiable.
- For IP Owners: Documenting licensing agreements, maintaining financial records, and tracking brand misuse are crucial to strengthening claims in court.
- For Consumers: The case highlights how infringement can mislead buyers and compromise brand authenticity.
Implications: What This Means for E-Commerce and IP Law
| Theme | Implications |
| E-commerce liability | Platforms can no longer hide behind intermediary status—they may be liable when owning private labels. |
| IP enforcement | Signals stronger protection for brands; even well-resourced e-commerce giants can be held accountable. |
| Legal precedent | Sets a robust framework for future “e-infringement” cases in India. |
| Global resonance | Mirrors rising international scrutiny of platform accountability in IP disputes. |
Conclusion
The Amazon vs. Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark case has emerged as a watershed moment in Indian IP law. By awarding record-breaking damages and introducing the concept of “e-infringement,” the Delhi High Court has sent a powerful message: no company, however large, is above the law when it comes to protecting intellectual property.
As e-commerce continues to dominate global trade, this ruling will likely influence how courts across India—and even internationally—approach the accountability of digital platforms in trademark disputes.
For now, Amazon has appealed, and the damages have been temporarily stayed. Yet, the precedent stands as a reminder that trademark enforcement in India is entering a new era of stringency and accountability.
Summary: Connecting the Dots
- The background shows a high-profile clash of a luxury brand vs an e-commerce giant integrating private labels.
- The court’s damage calculation leaned on a 7.5% royalty benchmark, supported by evidence and expert testimony, despite the defendants’ absence.
- General damages principles—like actual loss, reasonable royalty, additional expenses, and punitive considerations—were effectively applied.
- The case sets a precedent: digital platforms can’t hide behind intermediary status where they influence or control infringing brand use.
At company360, we provide affordable services related to trademark watch an activity that allows the brand owners to keep a track of infringing labels and brand names that intent to free-ride over their goodwill. This ensures that their brand is protected from copying, prevents market confusion, and safeguards sales performance.
Contact us for trademark watch related queries at info@company360.in
