New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a major postponement to Amazon Technologies, a subsidiary of the global e-commerce giant Amazon Inc., in a dispute for brands with the CV lifestyle shares, the owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) Brand. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan refused to lift the accommodation at a £ 336 damages award against Amazon Technologies, which maintained a July command of the Delhi High Court’s Division of the Delhi Division in February. have. The Pillow Court agreed that the earlier judgment suffered from serious procedural defects. It was found that Amazon Technologies did not give proper notice, which led to the process without giving it a fair chance to defend itself. The damages were also inflated to over £ 336 crore of £ 2 crore without notifying the company. The court further noted that the single Judge Amazon and its related entities were wrong, although Amazon technologies were not directly involved in the alleged offense. “Even if it were presumed, merely for the business of argument, that Amazon technologies took a conscious decision not to participate in the suit proceedings, that cannot justify mulcting it with damages of ₹ 336 crore. favorite of lifestyle, or damages or ₹ 336 crore without any sustainable finding or infringement, or or complicity in infringement, against Amazon Tech, ”notes the bank. “In light of the above, we have concluded that we should not disturb the ominous ruling and order accepted by the Supreme Court Divisional Bank,” the Supreme Court said. Trademark dispute is originated in the dispute dates back to 2020, when Amsterdam-based lifestyle shares, which own the BHPC brand, have sued Amazon Technologies in the Delhi High Court, with the infringement on brands. The company and its licensee demanded exclusive rights to the BHPC logo-which had a Polo player on horseback-and claimed that the identical or fraudulent similar marks appeared on clothing sold under Amazon’s internal symbol brand and by the big seller Cloudtail India on Amazon.in. Lifestyle shares sought a permanent order, the delivery of infringing goods, £ 2 damages and a version of profits. Amazon Technologies, which was served by e -mail and WhatsApp, according to the plaintiffs, did not appear, which in April 2022 presented to continue ex parte (in the absence of one party). In February 2025, the single judge against Amazon Technologies ruled, with $ 38.78m (about £ 336 crore) in costs for lost royalties and promotional expenses, with £ 3.23 crore in cost. The order also permanently limited Amazon and its subsidiaries to use the BHPC logo or similar marks. Amazon later appealed before the Delhi Supreme Court’s Division Bank, arguing that it was denied a fair trial and was not properly notified. It also disputed the sharp escalation in damages without pre -intimacy. The decision remained. The Divisional Bank remained the execution of the decision in July 2025, referring to procedural irregularities and legal defects, and did so without requiring Amazon to deposit the amount. Lifestyle shares then moved the Supreme Court and tried to evacuate the accommodation, arguing that the Supreme Court did wrong by granting it unconditionally. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court order, which allowed Amazon to immediately avoid the payment of the £ 336 Crore Award at the final disposal of the case. India’s e -commerce market is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 21% to reach $ 325 billion by 2030, according to Deloitte’s 2024 report. Amazon India has raised about 31% of this market through gross trading value, which has a 35% share.
-
-
-
-
