“If you build a brand, they will come. But what happens when a retail giant decides to build a brand that looks just like yours?”

The Beginning: A Brand in the Making

It all started in 1982 when Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) was founded as a luxury fashion brand inspired by the prestige of polo sports. Over the years, BHPC grew into a global powerhouse, selling high-end apparel, accessories, and fragrances across more than 60 countries.

In 2007, BHPC entered India, carefully curating its brand image as "affordable luxury.” By 2015, its products—ranging from polo shirts to accessories—were a status symbol among young professionals.

But then, something changed.

Sales began to decline sharply, and BHPC’s licensing partner in India reported unusual losses. The cause? A strikingly familiar horse-and-rider logo appearing on Amazon India’s private label, “Symbol.”

Customers, lured by shockingly low prices (₹300-₹400 per product), started buying Symbol’s apparel, mistaking it for BHPC.

It was the perfect corporate heist—except BHPC fought back.

The Legal Battle: Taking on a Giant

What Did BHPC Accuse Amazon Of?

In 2020, BHPC and its parent company, Lifestyle Equities C.V., took Amazon to court, alleging:

1. Trademark Infringement & Deceptive Similarity
• The horse-and-rider logo used by Amazon’s "Symbol" was eerily similar to BHPC’s globally recognized emblem.
• This misled customers into believing they were buying BHPC products.
2. Financial Damages
• After Amazon launched Symbol, BHPC’s sales plummeted, while its Gulf region sales surged—a stark contrast that proved market interference.
• The plaintiffs sought ₹1,260 crores ($155.59 million) in damages, citing loss of royalties, reputation, and future expansion.
3. Predatory Pricing & Brand Dilution
• BHPC’s products were positioned as premium fashion (₹2,500-₹4,500 per product).
• Amazon slashed prices to ₹300-₹400, damaging the brand’s elite status.
4. Willful Infringement & Punitive Damages
• BHPC’s lawyers cited a 2021 Reuters investigation, exposing Amazon’s global pattern of copying successful brands under its private labels.
• They demanded ₹416 crores ($50 million) in punitive damages to set an example.

Amazon’s Defense: The Silence That Cost Them Millions

Amazon’s response? Silence.

Amazon Technologies Inc. (Defendant No. 1)

• Did not contest the case, leading to an ex-parte ruling against them.
• Their legal team had initially offered to accept an injunction and settle, but later withdrew from proceedings.

Cloudtail India (Defendant No. 2)

• Admitted to selling the Symbol products but claimed Amazon was responsible for branding.
• Settled separately for a mere ₹4,78,484 ($5,750) in damages.

Amazon Seller Services (Defendant No. 3)

• Argued it was just an intermediary and had no control over product listings.
• The court agreed, dismissing claims against Amazon India (Amazon Seller Services).

But Amazon Technologies Inc. wasn’t so lucky.

The Court’s Verdict: A Wake-Up Call for E-Commerce Giants

After reviewing five key witnesses, financial reports, and market data, the Delhi High Court delivered its landmark ruling on February 25, 2025.

Here’s what the court found:

 Trademark Infringement Was “Evident”

• The Symbol logo was clearly inspired by BHPC’s design.
• Consumers were misled, violating India’s Trademark Act, 1999.

 Amazon Knew But Did Nothing

• The company had full knowledge of the case but ignored legal notices.
• The court viewed this as a tacit admission of guilt.

 Financial Losses Were Substantiated

• BHPC’s Indian sales declined, while Gulf region sales boomed.
• Amazon profited from the confusion, damaging BHPC’s business.

 Punitive Damages Were Denied

• The court awarded only compensatory damages (₹336 crores), declining punitive damages.
• However, the ruling still set a strong precedent for similar cases.

The ₹336 Crore Judgment: What It Means for E-Commerce

This ruling wasn’t just about BHPC vs. Amazon—it was about the future of brand protection in e-commerce.

1. E-Commerce Giants Can No Longer Hide

• Amazon tried to distance itself from liability—but the court held its private label division accountable.
• Future lawsuits may follow this model, ensuring stricter IP enforcement.

2. Stronger Protections for Global Brands

• Luxury brands often struggle with counterfeits and copycats on online marketplaces.
• This case proves they can fight back—and win.

3. India Joins the Global Crackdown on Amazon’s Tactics

This case isn’t an isolated event. Amazon has faced similar lawsuits worldwide:

• Birkenstock vs. Amazon (Germany, 2017) – Amazon was banned from selling Birkenstock due to counterfeits.
• Nike vs. Amazon (U.S., 2019) – Nike stopped selling on Amazon due to trademark concerns.
• LVMH vs. Amazon (France, 2021) – Louis Vuitton sued Amazon for failing to stop counterfeits.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling adds India to the growing list of countries pushing back against Amazon’s branding practices.

What Happens Next? Will Amazon Appeal?

Amazon has two options:

1. Accept the verdict and pay ₹336 crores—setting a precedent for future cases.
2. Appeal the ruling in a Supreme court—but risk further legal scrutiny.

Either way, this battle has changed e-commerce law forever.

Final Thoughts: A Win for Trademark Protection

The Amazon vs. BHPC case is more than just a legal victory—it’s a warning to e-commerce giants:

 Online platforms CAN be held accountable for brand violations.
 Private label strategies must respect trademark laws.
 Luxury brands have the legal power to fight back.

The next time you see a suspiciously familiar logo on an online marketplace, ask yourself—who’s really behind it?

What Do You Think?

Should e-commerce platforms like Amazon be fully liable for trademark violations?

Or

 should they be treated as neutral marketplaces?

Drop your thoughts in the comments!