New Delhi:
Amazon’s India unit has been ordered by the Delhi High Court to pay Rs 339.25 crore to luxury clothing brand Beverly Hills Polo Club in damages for infringing on its trademark logo.
The Beverly Hills Polo Club filed a lawsuit claiming that Amazon’s own brand ‘Amazon Technologies’ infringed on its trademark logo and sold garments with identical branding on its website at a fraction of the price.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court remarked that Amazon engaged in a “deliberate strategy of obfuscation, pretending to wear different hats-one as an intermediary, one as a retailer, and one as a brand owner – all in an attempt to shift responsibility and evade liability for trademark infringement.”
Amazon “is well aware of the exclusive rights of the Plaintiffs in the BHPC mark and logo as it has been involved in litigation” in multiple jurisdictions, including the UK, the court added, issuing a “permanent injunction”.
Amazon Technologies was placing products priced at 10% of the products sold by the luxury brand.
The Beverly Hill Polo Club (BHPC) trademark logo features a charging polo pony with a player, holding a polo stick mounted on the horse, representing the sport. The BHPC in its plea said the use of the mark and logo serves as a unique identifier of its brand and symbolizes its association with the sport of polo, luxury and premium lifestyle products.
It also stated that the mark is registered in at least 91 countries including India, US, UK, UAE, Germany, Nepal, Mexico, etc. The BHPC products with the trademark were launched in India in 2002.
The luxury brand told the court that the word mark ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ is inspired by Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, an affluent area in the US, associating the brand with luxury and high-end fashion.
The case was initiated in 2020 by Lifestyle Equities, the owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club horse trademark.
Amazon faced similar allegations in London by Lifestyle Equities in 2019. Last year, Amazon lost an appeal against a ruling that it had infringed UK trademarks by targeting British consumers on its US website.
