Amazon Wins Relief As SC Upholds Stay In Beverly Hills Polo Club Trademark Case
“Trademark dispute deepens as Lifestyle fails to overturn HC stay in SC”
In a significant legal development in the realm of intellectual property rights, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV against an interim stay order granted by the Delhi High Court in favour of Amazon Technologies. The decision effectively relieves Amazon from an earlier direction to pay ₹340 crore in damages for alleged trademark infringement concerning the brand Beverly Hills Polo Club.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute revolves around the use of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark—an internationally recognized brand name claimed by UK-based Lifestyle entities. Lifestyle Equities CV had introduced the brand in India in 2007, establishing a presence in the domestic market and associating its identity with luxury, affluence, and high-end fashion. The brand’s value, according to the claimants, is deeply rooted in its logo and geographical reference to Beverly Hills, Los Angeles.
In February, Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court had ruled in favour of Lifestyle companies, issuing a permanent injunction against Amazon Technologies. The order restrained Amazon from advertising, selling, or dealing in any products bearing a logo identical or deceptively similar to the Beverly Hills Polo Club mark. The judgment also directed Amazon to pay ₹340 crore in damages, citing the platform’s dominant market position and its alleged wilful infringement of trademark rights.
High Court’s Interim Relief to Amazon
However, the single-judge ruling was subsequently stayed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on July 1. The Bench held that enforcement of the February judgment should be halted pending further proceedings. This stay essentially suspended Amazon’s obligation to pay damages until a final determination was made.
Lifestyle Equities and its licensing counterpart contested the stay order and approached the Supreme Court to have it vacated. Their plea was centred on the argument that Amazon, along with entities such as Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Services, had engaged in a flagrant and wilful violation of intellectual property rights, warranting exemplary and punitive damages. The appellants emphasized the need to reprimand what they described as unethical and unlawful commercial behaviour by a major e-commerce conglomerate.
Supreme Court’s Dismissal of Lifestyle’s Appeal
A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by the Lifestyle companies. By upholding the Delhi High Court’s interim stay, the apex court effectively paused enforcement of the damage’s directive against Amazon. While no detailed reasoning was immediately available in the dismissal, the outcome implies the Supreme Court’s agreement with the High Court’s position that the matter requires further scrutiny before any financial liabilities can be enforced.
Arguments from Both Sides
Lifestyle Equities maintained that the infringement was intentional and egregious, especially given Amazon’s massive digital footprint and its ability to control the visibility and promotion of products on its platform. They argued that such conduct not only undermines established trademark rights but also sets a dangerous precedent in the growing e-commerce industry.
Amazon, on the other hand, contended that the claimants had failed to furnish adequate evidence to prove that any infringement had occurred. It was also argued that mere ownership of a trademark and general goodwill did not establish a direct violation, especially in the absence of clear proof of deceptive similarity or consumer confusion.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Lifestyle’s appeal marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing legal battle between intellectual property rights holders and large-scale digital platforms. While the decision does not resolve the core issues of trademark infringement, it underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in adjudicating complex IP disputes—especially those involving high-stakes claims and global e-commerce players.
As the case proceeds in the High Court, stakeholders in the IP and digital commerce ecosystems will be watching closely. The final verdict could have far-reaching implications for trademark enforcement in the digital marketplace and the responsibilities of e-commerce intermediaries under Indian law.