The Delhi High Court has stayed a single-judge order that had directed global e-commerce giant Amazon to pay ₹340 crore in damages to Amsterdam-based apparel brand Lifestyle Equities for alleged trademark infringement involving the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) brand.
A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul passed the stay order on Tuesday, responding to Amazon’s appeal against the February 25 ruling by Justice Prathiba M Singh. That earlier order had found Amazon guilty of “blatant infringement” of the BHPC trademark by licensing a similar logo under its in-house brand “SYMBOL” to Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd.
Justice Singh’s detailed 85-page judgment had concluded that the SYMBOL brand’s horse logo closely resembled BHPC’s, and Amazon could not disassociate itself from the use of that device mark simply by licensing the word mark. The judge also highlighted Amazon’s significant control over Cloudtail’s operations through its Brand License and Distribution Agreement.
However, in its appeal, Amazon, represented by senior advocates Arvind Nigam and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, argued that the order was passed ex-parte—without giving the company an opportunity to present its defense. The legal team contended that no material evidence of trademark misuse had been presented by Lifestyle Equities before the single-judge bench. They further claimed Amazon merely lent its trademarks and had no role in manufacturing the allegedly infringing products.
On the other hand, Lifestyle’s counsel, senior advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, argued that Amazon had been served summons and was fully aware of the proceedings. He said Amazon chose not to participate and cannot now claim the order was ex-parte. He also urged the court to consider granting only a conditional stay.
During the hearing, the division bench expressed concern over the manner in which the initial proceedings had unfolded. “It’s an extremely strange situation,” Justice Shankar remarked. “The entire trial has proceeded behind their (Amazon’s) back. It’s a completely one-sided trial.”
The bench noted that the case was not genuinely adversarial, given Amazon’s absence from the initial proceedings. Referring to the ₹340 crore decree, the judges said the single-judge had treated Lifestyle’s submissions as “gospel truth,” without testing them against counter-evidence.
Amazon’s appeal will now be heard on October 19.
