𝗔𝗺𝗮𝘇𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗮 $𝟯𝟵𝗠 [~𝟯𝟰𝟬 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀] 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻!
In a stunning verdict, the Delhi High Court has fined Amazon Technologies Inc. $39 million in a hard-hitting judgment on trademark infringement. The case, filed by Lifestyle Equities CV—𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗛𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗼 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯 (𝗕𝗛𝗣𝗖) 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱—accused Amazon of deliberately hijacking its brand identity by 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗲-𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹 ‘𝗦𝘆𝗺𝗯𝗼𝗹’. The court didn’t just rule against Amazon—it called out the entire e-commerce playbook of big tech, setting the stage for a precedent-setting battle on online trademark violations.
Case pdf: https://lnkd.in/gXwgxz_j
𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗢𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁
– E-commerce ≠ Safe Harbor
Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh didn’t hold back in dismissing Amazon’s usual “intermediary defense.” She pointed out that while platforms claim to be mere facilitators of trade, they actively control branding, pricing, and distribution—making them responsible for trademark violations.
– Amazon’s Willful Blindness & Tactical Absence
Amazon chose not to defend itself in the proceedings, despite clear knowledge of the suit. The judgment notes that this wasn’t ignorance—it was a calculated move to deflect liability onto its Indian counterpart, Cloudtail. The Court wasn’t buying it, emphasizing that Amazon had “deliberately structured its business model to evade responsibility while profiting from infringement.”
– Deep Discounts = Brand Destruction?
BHPC products typically retail for ₹3,000–₹5,000, but Amazon’s infringing ‘Symbol’ label was selling similar products for ₹300–₹400. The Court found this wasn’t mere competition—it was a deliberate market dilution tactic that cheapened the BHPC brand, misled consumers, and hurt BHPC’s legitimate retail partners.
– Amazon’s Global Tactics Called Out
In a rare move, the Court referenced Amazon’s history of controversial brand knockoffs, citing a 2021 Reuters report that exposed Amazon’s alleged use of internal data to create and promote its own rival products. The judgment also noted that Amazon had faced similar allegations in the UK and other jurisdictions, calling it part of a systemic pattern of aggressive IP violations.
AmazonVsBHPC ECommerceInfringement TrademarkWars MentblueNews
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.