This ruling against Amazon is a significant legal development, particularly in the realm of trademark infringement and e-commerce liability. The Delhi High Court’s order for Amazon to pay $39 million in damages marks one of the largest penalties against a US company in an Indian trademark dispute.
Key Takeaways from the Case
1. Nature of the Trademark Infringement
• Lifestyle Equities, which owns the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) horse logo, sued Amazon India in 2020, claiming that the platform was selling apparel featuring an identical or nearly identical logo at lower prices.
• The Delhi High Court found that the logo used was “hardly distinguishable” from BHPC’s trademark.
• Notably, the infringing brand was owned by Amazon Technologies, not just third-party sellers.
2. Amazon’s History of Trademark Violations
• Amazon had already been involved in similar trademark litigation in the UK with Lifestyle Equities.
• In 2019, Amazon was sued in London over the same Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark.
• In 2023, Amazon lost an appeal in the UK, where a court ruled that Amazon’s US website infringed UK trademarks by allowing British customers to purchase counterfeit products.
3. The Larger Context: Allegations of Unfair Business Practices
• A 2021 Reuters investigation revealed that Amazon systematically created knockoffs and manipulated search results in India to promote its private labels.
• In November 2023, India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) raided sellers operating on Amazon and Flipkart over alleged violations of foreign investment rules.
• Praveen Khandelwal, a BJP lawmaker, has urged the Indian government to take action against Amazon’s “predatory” practices.
Why This Matters
This ruling underscores growing scrutiny of Big Tech’s business practices in India, particularly concerning:
• Trademark enforcement and the liability of online marketplaces.
• Fair competition and concerns over Amazon’s dominance.
• Foreign investment rules and regulatory challenges facing e-commerce giants.
Amazon’s denial of wrongdoing suggests it may appeal the ruling, but the case sets a legal precedent for holding major platforms accountable for counterfeit goods and intellectual property violations in India.
With inputs from agencies
Image Source: Multiple agencies
© Copyright 2024. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
