The division bench of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed its single-judge order that asked US multinational Amazon Technologies, Inc to pay Rs 340 crore in damages to Lifestyle Equities and Lifestyle Licensing for infringement of their registered trademark, ' Beverly Hills Polo Club'.
Lifestyle sells clothing and accessories like watches, bags, eyewear and footwear under the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand, which it launched in India in 2007.
The division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul while disposing of the Amazon's application stayed the operation of its single judge's February 25 judgment that asked the US company to pay damages of over Rs 336.02 crore and costs of over Rs 3.23 crore to the Lifestyle firms. However, the DB said that the stay shall be subject to an undertaking being furnished by Amazon to comply with the other directions in the judgment.
“The considerations outlined…make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the HC said in its Tuesday order.
Stating that the single judge had “not acted strictly in accordance with the law,” Justice Shankar said that the precise amount quantified in the Lifestyle’s suit was only little over Rs 2 crore. There is, therefore, substance in the contention of Amazon Tech that, without an amendment of the plaint (by Lifestyle), the damages could not have been enhanced, much less to Rs 3780 crore and that too without any prior opportunity to the US company to contest the proposed judgment.
According to the Tuesday’s judgment, the single judge hasd adversely commented on what she perceived as Amazon Tech’s deliberate absence from the proceedings in the suit. Even if it were to be presumed, merely for the sake of argument, that Amazon Tech took a conscious decision not to participate in the suit proceedings, that cannot justify mulcting it with damages of Rs 336.03 crore, Justice Shankar said.
Amazon had argued that Lifestyle companies had sought damages but were not able to show any wrong on its part. There was no evidence placed before the single judge that Amazon had infringed Lifestyle companies' trademark, the US firm stated, adding the matter required a more comprehensive look by the division bench.
In February, Justice Prathiba M Singh had restrained Amazon Technologies from selling, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in any products or using in any manner the logo mark which was identically or deceptively similar to the Lifestyle companies' trademark.
Noting that Amazon Technologies was one of the most dominant players in the ecommerce space, Justice Singh had said in the February order that the company was placing products priced at 10% of Lifestyle’s product cost, thereby engaging 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, she added.
Justice Singh was hearing a suit by Lifestyle companies seeking permanent injunction and damages against Amazon Technologies and its related companies Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Service for the infringement. Lifestyle companies had said they were the rightful proprietors of the registered trademark 'Beverly Hills Polo Club', which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in domestic and international markets.
Lifestyle sells clothing and accessories like watches, bags, eyewear and footwear under the Beverly Hills Polo Club brand, which it launched in India in 2007.
The division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul while disposing of the Amazon's application stayed the operation of its single judge's February 25 judgment that asked the US company to pay damages of over Rs 336.02 crore and costs of over Rs 3.23 crore to the Lifestyle firms. However, the DB said that the stay shall be subject to an undertaking being furnished by Amazon to comply with the other directions in the judgment.
“The considerations outlined…make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the HC said in its Tuesday order.
Stating that the single judge had “not acted strictly in accordance with the law,” Justice Shankar said that the precise amount quantified in the Lifestyle’s suit was only little over Rs 2 crore. There is, therefore, substance in the contention of Amazon Tech that, without an amendment of the plaint (by Lifestyle), the damages could not have been enhanced, much less to Rs 3780 crore and that too without any prior opportunity to the US company to contest the proposed judgment.
According to the Tuesday’s judgment, the single judge hasd adversely commented on what she perceived as Amazon Tech’s deliberate absence from the proceedings in the suit. Even if it were to be presumed, merely for the sake of argument, that Amazon Tech took a conscious decision not to participate in the suit proceedings, that cannot justify mulcting it with damages of Rs 336.03 crore, Justice Shankar said.
Amazon had argued that Lifestyle companies had sought damages but were not able to show any wrong on its part. There was no evidence placed before the single judge that Amazon had infringed Lifestyle companies' trademark, the US firm stated, adding the matter required a more comprehensive look by the division bench.
In February, Justice Prathiba M Singh had restrained Amazon Technologies from selling, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in any products or using in any manner the logo mark which was identically or deceptively similar to the Lifestyle companies' trademark.
Noting that Amazon Technologies was one of the most dominant players in the ecommerce space, Justice Singh had said in the February order that the company was placing products priced at 10% of Lifestyle’s product cost, thereby engaging 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, she added.
Justice Singh was hearing a suit by Lifestyle companies seeking permanent injunction and damages against Amazon Technologies and its related companies Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Service for the infringement. Lifestyle companies had said they were the rightful proprietors of the registered trademark 'Beverly Hills Polo Club', which enjoys extensive goodwill and recognition in domestic and international markets.
You may also like
MPs vote to ban Palestine Action after backlash alongside neo-Nazi militias
Loose Women's Sunetra Sarker 'unable to walk' after freak accident
US gives India priority as key South Asia defence partner: Pete Hegseth
Instagram DOWN as thousands of users report issues viewing posts worldwide
Liverpool easyJet flight declares emergency moments after take off
