Amazon Technologies, Inc. on Friday moved the division bench of the Delhi High Court, challenging its single judge order that asked the US major to pay Rs 340 crore in damages to Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V. for infringement of the latter's registered trademark ' Beverly Hills Polo Club'.
The division bench led by Justice Hari Shankar posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
Amazon told the bench that Lifestyles companies, which had claimed 'rightful ownership' of the mark and highlighted “extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets", had failed to show any evidence before the single judge that it had infringed their trademark. The Us company further argued that the matter required a detailed examination by the division bench.
In February, Justice Prathiba M. Singh had permanently restrained Amazon Technologies from selling, advertising, 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. She held that it is a known fact that Amazon Technologies is one of the most dominant players in the ecommerce space and has ways and means to use its dominant presence to promote its own products, as well as products that it might otherwise wish to promote.
Amazon Technologies, which was placing products priced at 10% of Lifestyle’s product cost, was 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, Justice Singh had said.
“It is a well known reality that all three defendants (Amazon Technologies, Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Service) belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity. Amazon Technologies has selectively chosen when to appear and not appear before the court,” the court noted, while saying that Amazon failed to explain the exact relationship between the three defendants, but agreed to suffer a permanent injunction, thereby evading scrutiny.
"Thus, the clear attempt is to not disclose the exact relationship between the said three defendants to this court. Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, this is not a bona fide conduct of a party before the court and the conduct of the defendant clearly demonstrates that there is an intent to withhold crucial information from the court, rather than engage in bona fide conduct as expected of a party before a judicial forum," Justice Singh said.
Amazon Technologies also has the leverage through its own platforms to dilute the Lifestyle brand or logo by indulging in deep discounting of its own products that compete with the latter's by using a similar mark or logo, Justice Singh added.
The Lifestyle entities had argued that it would be a classic case where owing to the wilful nature of the infringement, exemplary and punitive damages would be liable to be granted. Punitive damages were also required to reprimand the conduct of the defendants, which run a famous ecommerce portal and were also indulging in such a flagrant violation of IP rights, Lifestyle entities told the HC.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. had launched its products in India under the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark in 2007. The Beverly Hills Polo Club word-mark is stated to have been inspired from the geographical location Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, California, an area renowned for its luxury, affluence and association with high-end fashion and lifestyle products. The Lifestyle trademark consists of the word-mark 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' and the accompanying logo, the image of a 'charging polo pony, the rider and the polo stick or mallet'.
The division bench led by Justice Hari Shankar posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.
Amazon told the bench that Lifestyles companies, which had claimed 'rightful ownership' of the mark and highlighted “extensive goodwill and recognition in the domestic and international markets", had failed to show any evidence before the single judge that it had infringed their trademark. The Us company further argued that the matter required a detailed examination by the division bench.
In February, Justice Prathiba M. Singh had permanently restrained Amazon Technologies from selling, advertising, 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. She held that it is a known fact that Amazon Technologies is one of the most dominant players in the ecommerce space and has ways and means to use its dominant presence to promote its own products, as well as products that it might otherwise wish to promote.
Amazon Technologies, which was placing products priced at 10% of Lifestyle’s product cost, was 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, Justice Singh had said.
“It is a well known reality that all three defendants (Amazon Technologies, Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Service) belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity. Amazon Technologies has selectively chosen when to appear and not appear before the court,” the court noted, while saying that Amazon failed to explain the exact relationship between the three defendants, but agreed to suffer a permanent injunction, thereby evading scrutiny.
"Thus, the clear attempt is to not disclose the exact relationship between the said three defendants to this court. Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, this is not a bona fide conduct of a party before the court and the conduct of the defendant clearly demonstrates that there is an intent to withhold crucial information from the court, rather than engage in bona fide conduct as expected of a party before a judicial forum," Justice Singh said.
Amazon Technologies also has the leverage through its own platforms to dilute the Lifestyle brand or logo by indulging in deep discounting of its own products that compete with the latter's by using a similar mark or logo, Justice Singh added.
The Lifestyle entities had argued that it would be a classic case where owing to the wilful nature of the infringement, exemplary and punitive damages would be liable to be granted. Punitive damages were also required to reprimand the conduct of the defendants, which run a famous ecommerce portal and were also indulging in such a flagrant violation of IP rights, Lifestyle entities told the HC.
Lifestyle Equities C.V. had launched its products in India under the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark in 2007. The Beverly Hills Polo Club word-mark is stated to have been inspired from the geographical location Beverly Hills in Los Angeles, California, an area renowned for its luxury, affluence and association with high-end fashion and lifestyle products. The Lifestyle trademark consists of the word-mark 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' and the accompanying logo, the image of a 'charging polo pony, the rider and the polo stick or mallet'.
You may also like
Stampede at Goa temple: 6 killed, 15 injured at Lairai Devi in Shrigao
Kozhikode Medical College refutes report of 5 deaths due to inhaling smoke
Goa: At Least 6 Killed, Several Injured After Stampede During Shirgao Pilgrimage
BJP MP Brijesh Chowta writes to Amit Shah seeking NIA probe in Suhas Shetty's murder
Gene Hackman's secret burial and cryptic unmarked grave after £62m inheritance snub
