On 25 February 2025 the Delhi High Court ordered Amazon to pay ₹339.25 crore for counterfeit Beverly Hills Polo Club goods sold on its platform — one of the largest IP damages awards in India and a warning shot for every online marketplace. The safe harbour that shields intermediaries is not unconditional.
The case
Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Lifestyle Licensing B.V., owners of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) mark, sued Amazon Technologies Inc. and its affiliates (Cloudtail India and Amazon Seller Services), alleging the platform facilitated the sale of counterfeit BHPC apparel and accessories, damaging the brand.
Case title: Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors. — CS(COMM) 443/2020.
What the court awarded
Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled for the plaintiffs and broke the damages down concretely:
- ₹292.7 crore (about USD 33.78 million) for lost royalties the brand would have earned but for the counterfeits.
- ₹43.32 crore (about USD 5 million) for the extra marketing and advertising needed to repair the brand’s reputation.
- ₹3.23 crore in legal costs, which Amazon was ordered to bear.
Notably, the court rejected a further USD 5 million claim for loss of goodwill as speculative — underscoring that damages must rest on tangible, evidenced loss, not assertion.
The legal question: safe harbour vs. actual knowledge
Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries enjoy a safe harbour — they are not liable for third-party content unless they have actual knowledge of the infringement and fail to act.
The plaintiffs’ case was that they repeatedly notified Amazon of the counterfeits, and Amazon did not do enough to remove the listings or prevent further sales. On that footing, the court found the platform could not simply hide behind intermediary status. Two themes drove the analysis:
- Knowledge and control — once on notice, an intermediary must take down infringing listings; inaction can forfeit immunity.
- Active participation — where a platform’s own systems promote and amplify listings, it looks less like a passive conduit.
Why the ruling matters
- Stronger due diligence. Marketplaces face real pressure to police listings proactively, not just react to complaints.
- Business-model risk. Platforms reliant on third-party sellers may need to rebuild their IP-protection mechanisms to avoid liability.
- Evidence discipline for brand owners. The court’s rejection of the goodwill claim is a reminder that quantified, documented loss wins damages — speculation does not.
For rights holders, the takeaway is to notify early, notify in writing, and keep the record — and to document losses in a form a court can measure. See our work on litigation and dispute resolution and anti-counterfeiting.
Frequently asked questions
How much was Amazon ordered to pay? ₹339.25 crore in total — ₹292.7 crore lost royalties, ₹43.32 crore reputational repair, plus ₹3.23 crore costs.
Does the IT Act safe harbour still protect marketplaces? Yes, but only while they lack actual knowledge. Once credibly notified of infringement and failing to act, an intermediary can lose that protection.
Why was part of the damages claim rejected? The additional goodwill claim was found speculative — the court required concrete, evidenced loss.
What should brand owners do after this ruling? Notify platforms in writing at the first sign of counterfeits, preserve the correspondence, and document losses in measurable terms.
Legislation referred to
- Information Technology Act, 2000
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999