In a landmark judgment that has sent ripples across the Indian e-commerce and intellectual property (IP) landscape, the Delhi High Court has imposed a hefty fine of ₹340 crore on Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. for trademark infringement. The case, filed by BHPC Associates LLC, owner of the globally recognized fashion brand Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC), marks one of the most significant IP enforcement decisions against a multinational e-commerce giant in India.
The court found Amazon guilty of allowing counterfeit and deceptively similar goods to be sold under its private label “Symbol”, which mimicked BHPC’s registered logo and brand identity—ultimately leading to consumer confusion and trademark dilution. This article offers an in-depth legal analysis of the case, the implications for brand owners and online marketplaces, and the evolving contours of trademark law enforcement in India.
This blog is a part of our The Ultimate Guide to Intellectual Property Law – ATB Legal blogpost.
Background of the Dispute
BHPC Associates LLC, a U.S.-based fashion brand, owns the registered trademark for “Beverly Hills Polo Club” in India across multiple classes, particularly for clothing, footwear, and fashion accessories. The brand is known for its iconic logo that includes a horse-mounted polo player—a distinctive mark that enjoys global recognition.
The plaintiff alleged that Amazon was selling goods under its in-house label “Symbol” that featured a logo deceptively similar to BHPC’s registered mark. These goods were listed on the Amazon India platform without authorization and often included the use of confusingly similar imagery, typography, and branding elements that misled consumers into believing the products were associated with BHPC.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off
The core legal question was whether Amazon’s “Symbol” label amounted to:
-
-
- Infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and
-
-
-
- Passing off by misrepresenting its goods as those of BHPC.
-
Intermediary Liability
Amazon’s defense rested partially on the “safe harbor” protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content. However, the question arose: could Amazon still claim intermediary status when it was selling the alleged infringing goods under its own brand?
Role of E-commerce Platforms as Active Sellers
The court also analysed the extent to which e-commerce platforms that host and market their own private labels can be considered active participants in the sale of infringing goods, rather than passive facilitators.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Amazon as a Direct Infringer
The Court emphasized that Amazon’s involvement was not merely passive or facilitative. Since the goods in question were sold under Amazon’s own private label “Symbol,” Amazon had direct control over product design, branding, and distribution, and was not merely hosting third-party listings.
This active participation stripped Amazon of the intermediary protection typically available to e-commerce platforms. The Court relied on precedents such as:
-
-
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors. (2018): which held that platforms cannot claim safe harbor if they actively promote or own the product.
-
-
-
- Kent RO Systems v. Amit Kotak (2020): where e-commerce platforms were held liable when they failed to act on repeated IP violations.
-
Deceptive Similarity and Consumer Confusion
The Court conducted a side-by-side visual comparison of the BHPC mark and the “Symbol” branding. It held that the Symbol logo was deceptively similar, and that the average consumer was likely to be confused or misled.
Further, the use of similar font styles, polo imagery, and overlapping target markets (i.e., fashion and apparel) created a likelihood of association, infringing BHPC’s exclusive trademark rights.
Damage Assessment and Penalty
Based on sales data submitted by BHPC, the court determined that Amazon had made substantial profits from the infringing goods. Considering this:
-
- Amazon was directed to pay ₹340 crore to BHPC as damages for loss of brand reputation, trademark dilution, and unjust enrichment.
-
- Amazon was also permanently restrained from using the infringing logo or any deceptively similar mark in India.
For Brand Owners and IP Holders
The judgment significantly strengthens the hand of brand owners in India:
-
- It reaffirms that registered trademark rights are enforceable even against deep-pocketed global corporations.
-
- Encourages vigilance and proactive enforcement, especially in the fashion and consumer goods sectors where counterfeiting is rampant.
For Consumers
While not explicitly discussed in the judgment, the ruling indirectly protects consumer interests by:
-
- Reducing brand confusion.
-
- Promoting transparency and authenticity in online marketplaces.
Broader Trends in Indian Trademark Jurisprudence
This judgment is part of a broader trend of judicial activism in protecting intellectual property rights in India. Courts are increasingly:
-
- Holding online platforms accountable for IP violations.
-
- Imposing high damages to deter future violations.
-
- Encouraging injunctive reliefs and stringent brand compliance.
It also highlights the judiciary’s willingness to look beyond technical defenses and focus on the real-world impact of brand misuse on reputation and consumer perception.
Conclusion
The ₹340 crore penalty against Amazon is not just a financial blow—it is a legal wake-up call. The Delhi High Court’s ruling underlines that IP enforcement in India has matured, and brand protection is now taken seriously, even when large global players are involved.
For legal practitioners, in-house counsel, and brand strategists, this case is a crucial reminder to stay alert to potential IP violations, even within their own private-label operations. As India becomes an increasingly competitive market, robust trademark strategy and enforcement mechanisms are no longer optional—they are essential.
