Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal v. LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR

Judgment

1. This order disposes of CM Appl 26455/2025, preferred by Amazon Technologies Inc1 under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3)2 of the CPC3, seeking stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 25 February 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS (Comm) 443/20204. The impugned judgment decrees the suit, against the appellant/Defendant 1 Amazon Tech for ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, apart from costs of ₹ 3,23,10,966.60. A prefatory note 1 “Amazon Tech” hereinafter 2 5. Stay by Appellate Court. – (1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree. Explanation. – An order by the Appellate Court for the stay of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date of the communication of such order to the Court of first instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on his personal knowledge, stating that an order for the stay of execution of the decree has been made by the Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or any order to the contrary, be acted upon by the Court of first instance. (3) Court making it is satisfied— No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the ***** that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless (a) the order is made; (b) (c) decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 4 Lifestyle Equities CV & anr v Amazon Technologies, Inc. & others, also referred to, hereinafter, as “the suit” Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

2. We must, at the very outset, enter a word of apology for the length of this judgment, which disposes only of an interim application. We, however, had no option in the matter.

3. For reasons which would become clearer before the conclusion of this judgment, we are of the opinion that a case for complete stay of operation of the impugned judgment, including the requirement of security, by the appellant Amazon Tech, of any part of the decretal amount, is made out in the present case. As this marks a significant departure from the general principle that no complete stay of money decrees should be granted by the Court, and the exordium, by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malwa Strips Pvt Ltd v Jyoti Ltd5, that, if the Court is, in a rare case, inclined to grant stay of operation of a money decree, cogent reasons justifying the decision must be forthcoming, we have endeavoured to be as comprehensive as possible. This has resulted in the present judgement becoming more prolix than judgements dealing with interlocutory reliefs ordinarily would be.

4. This is an extraordinary case, in which a suit which, at least facially, seeks damages against the Appellant Amazon Tech, quantified that ₹ 2,00,05,000/–, has been decreed against Amazon Tech for ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, apart from costs of ₹ 3,23,10,966.60, without the pleadings having been amended at any stage. At no stage of the proceedings did the plaintiffs Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV, in their pleadings, ever claim the awarded amount of ₹ 5 (2009) 2 SCC 426 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 336,02,87,000/-. Till the filing of written submissions, after conclusion of arguments before the learned Single Judge, the claim of the plaintiffs continued to remain ₹ 2,00,05,000/–. It was only in written submissions, filed by the plaintiffs after arguments were concluded, that the claimed damages were enhanced, nearly 2000- fold, to approximately ₹ 3780 crores. As against this claim, the impugned judgment awards, to the plaintiffs, ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, for which, too, there are no supportive pleadings.

5. Moreover, the entire trial, recording of evidence, arguments and filing of written submission took place only in the presence of the plaintiffs Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV and, after 2 March 2023, till the passing of the final impugned judgment, there has been no other party before the learned Single Judge. The proceedings have, therefore, been entirely conducted in the absence of the defendants. Of course, it is the endeavour of learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs to convince us that there was no procedural irregularity in this, as there were only three defendants, of whom, by order dated 2 March 2023, Defendant 3 was deleted from the array of parties, the suit was decreed against Defendant 2 for ₹ 4,78,484/-, and Defendant 1, i.e. the present appellant Amazon Tech and already been proceeded ex parte by order dated 20 April 2022. If, therefore, there were no defendants before the learned Single Judge after 2 March 2023, this was but in the ordinary goes of things, and no exception could legitimately be taken thereto. We would examine this contention by and by. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 The appellant’s submission, in a nutshell

6. There were three defendants in the suit, of which the appellant was Defendant 1. The plaint computed the damages claimed, from all defendants, as ₹ 2,00,05,000/- or such other amount as the Court would find to be payable. The plaint was never amended. No pleadings were introduced, enhancing this claim. The appellant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20 April 2022. Of the remaining two defendants, the suit was decreed, against Defendant 2, for ₹ 4,78,484/-, vide order dated 2 March 2023. The same order deleted Defendant 3 from the array of parties. There was, therefore, after 2 March 2023, no defendant before the learned Single Judge, and the plaintiff alone was present during the entire trial, recording of evidence and advancing of arguments. The proceedings were, therefore, one-sided. Without amending the plaint, the plaintiff’s witnesses sought introduce, through evidence, a colossally enhanced claim for damages of ₹ 3780 crores, against the appellant. No pleadings, supporting such a humongous claim, are on record. No such claim for damages has ever been pleaded, even tentatively. This figure, in fact, does not even figure in the evidence led by the plaintiff, but has been worked out solely in written submissions tendered to the Court. The appellant was never confronted with this claim. Such a blowing up of an original claim of a little over ₹ 2 crores, to ₹ 3780 crores, could not have been effected without amending the claim, and putting the appellant on notice in that regard. As no defendant was present before the learned Single Judge, the evidence went untested. Solely on the basis of the evidence so led, and without the plaint ever Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 having been amended, the learned Single Judge has awarded, in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and against the appellant- Defendant 1, damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-.

7. Moreover, points out Mr. Nigam, the grievance of the plaintiff was that the mark , which infringes the plaintiff ’s registered trade mark, was being affixed on apparel which were sold by Defendant 2 Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd6 on the website of Defendant 3. Defendant 2 had, on 2 March 2023, conceded, before this Court, that the affixing of the mark was the sole decision of Defendant 2, and the appellant-Defendant 1 has no liability in the matter. The plaintiff also conceded, in the same order, that the mark was not subject matter of the agreement between the appellant-Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 Cloudtail. It was on this basis that the suit was decreed against Defendant 2 Cloudtail for ₹ 4,78,484/-. It was after this order was passed, and no defendant remained to contest the suit, that the trial commenced. On the basis of the evidence so led, after the order of 2 March 2023, the plaintiff sought, in its written submissions, to raise a claim of ₹ 3780 crores against the appellant- Defendant 1, out of which the impugned judgment decrees, in favour the plaintiff and against the appellant, an amount of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-. 6 “Cloudtail” hereinafter Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

8. Mr. Nigam, who led the initial arguments on behalf of the appellant, opened his submissions by contending that, de hors the legality of the decision to proceed ex parte against his client, and without prejudice to his submissions that there was, in fact, no evidence whatsoever against his client at all, these facts are by themselves startling enough to warrant entertainment of the present appeal without requiring any deposit, even by way of security, of the decretal amount. The lis

9. We now proceed to reconnoitre the facts and the issues involved, in somewhat greater detail.

10. As mentioned earlier, there were three defendants in the suit. Amazon Tech was Defendant 1, Cloudtail was Defendant 2, and Amazon Seller Service Pvt Ltd7 was Defendant 3. The appellant Amazon Tech was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20 April 2022. (The legality of the decision to proceed ex parte against Amazon Tech is seriously disputed before us, and we would advert thereto by and by.) Thus, Amazon Tech was never represented before the learned Single Judge. 7 “ASSPL” hereinafter Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

11. The plaintiffs in the suit were Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV, who would be referred to, collectively and for the sake of convenience, as “Lifestyle” hereinafter.

12. By order dated 2 March 2023, the suit was decreed against Defendant 2 Cloudtail for ₹ 4,78,484/-, and Defendant 3 ASSPL was deleted from the array of parties.

13. Thus, post 2 March 2023, the only party before the learned Single Judge, till the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed, was Lifestyle.

14. The prayers in the suit were for issuance of a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL from infringing the registered mark of Lifestyle by use of the logo, apart from rendition or accounts, delivery up, costs and damages. The damages claimed in the suit were “₹ 2,00,05,000/- or any such amount as found due in favour of the plaintiffs”. It merits mention that the plaint was never amended, to incorporate any claim, or prayer, for any specific quantum of damages in excess of ₹ 2,00,05,000/-.

15. Having decreed the suit against Defendant 2 Cloudtail for ₹ 4,78,484/-, and deleted Defendant 3 ASSPL from the array of parties, impugned judgment decrees suit, against Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 appellant/Defendant 1 Amazon Tech for ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, apart from costs of ₹ 3,23,10,966.60.

16. Amazon Tech has appealed, to us, against the said judgment and decree vide RFA (OS) (Comm) 11/2025. We have issued notice in the RFA, returnable on 9 October 2025.

17. Along with the appeal, Amazon Tech has filed the present CM Appl 26455/2025, under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, seeking stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree.

18. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Krishan Kaul and Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Amazon Tech and Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Mr. J. Sai Deepak and Mr. Ankit Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, at length on the stay application. By this order, we proceed to dispose of the application. Rival Pleadings in the suit

19. Before we advert to rival submissions addressed by learned Senior Counsel, it is appropriate, in our view, to understand the exact case set up by Lifestyle before the learned Single Judge, especially to assess the extent to which it had made out a case against Amazon Tech. The Plaint Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

20. Paras 2 to 40 of the plaint extol Lifestyle, the allegedly infringed mark, and its reputation in the market, besides referencing the various registrations held by Lifestyle under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, of the mark.

21. The allegedly infringing activities of the defendants in the suit, i.e. Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL, are contained in paras 41 to 53, which read thus: “41. As per the information available with the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.1, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is an entity based out of 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109, U.S.A. and is dealing in, inter alia, apparel products under the brand name ‘Symbol’. Defendant No.1, under manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which its brand ‘Symbol’ . It is submitted that bear the Infringing Logo Mark Defendant No.2, Cloudtail India Private Limited, in accordance with the information available with the Plaintiff, is conducting its business through Defendant No.3’s website <www.amazon.in>. In accordance with the information available with the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.3 is engaged in a business of managing and operating the website, <www.amazon.in> for the purpose of selling and/or offering for sale products of person/entities with which it executes contracts, including Defendant No.2, in India and other jurisdictions. Defendant No.3, Amazon Seller Service Private Limited, is selling and offering for sale products of Defendant No.1 under the trade mark ‘Symbol’ bearing the Infringing Logo Mark. To the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge, Defendant No.1 sells products on the website of Defendant No.3 through Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs are not certain about the exact and actual relation between the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and, therefore, call upon the Defendants to disclose the relation between them. For ease of reference, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, and Defendant No.3 are collectively referred to as the “Defendants” in this Suit. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 The Plaintiffs are not certain about the exact constitution of 42. the Defendants and, thus, the Defendants should be directed to disclose their constitution before this Hon’ble Court, including detail of their promoters, partners, and owners.

43. It will not be out of place to mention that the Plaintiffs do not sell or offer for sale their products through e-commerce the sale of platforms. The only exception fragrance/perfumery products sold by Plaintiffs through Defendant No.2. It is submitted that apart from this, all other Plaintiffs’ products are only available for purchase in brick and mortar stores operated by the licensees of the Plaintiffs or on the websites of such licensees or through exclusive retail stores of the Plaintiffs. Thus, any or all products being sold by Defendants, except for fragrance/perfumery products being sold by Defendant No.2, are admittedly unauthorized and/or counterfeit.

44. Sometime in the month of May 2020, the Plaintiffs came across the Infringing Logo Mark of the Defendant No.1, when the Plaintiffs searched for T-Shirts & Polos on Defendant No.3’s website. A bare perusal of the Infringing Logo Mark makes it evident that the idea and concept behind the adoption of the Infringing Logo Mark has been derived from the Plaintiff’s Logo Mark. The essential feature of the Plaintiff, which is “charging pony with the polo player” ( ),has been replicated in its entirety in the Infringing Logo Mark ( ),for the illicit purpose of showing an association/affiliation with the Plaintiffs and causing confusion amongst consumers and traders.

45. The trademark ‘Symbol’ is a private label of Defendant No.1, which was introduced to compete with brands sold on Defendant No.3’s website. Defendant No.1’s products primarily replicate popular designs and trademarks, like that of the Plaintiffs’ Logo Mark. Being the private label of Defendant No.1, the products of Defendant No.1 are perpetually promoted on the website of Defendant No.3 and as a consequence, the chances of confusing Defendants’ product bearing the Infringing Mark with Plaintiffs’ Logo Mark are exponentially magnified.

46. After acquiring knowledge of the Infringing product on the website of Defendant No.3, the Plaintiffs purchased some products of Defendant No.1 from the website of Defendant No.3. The Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Plaintiffs upon receipt of these products immediately identified these products to be containing the Infringing Mark, which is a blatant imitation of the Plaintiff’s Logo Mark. The invoice issued by the Defendant No. 3 towards the purchase of these Infringing Products only disclosed the name and details of Defendant No.2.

47. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that this Hon’ble Court had passed ad interim orders in CS(COMM) 1015 of 2018, titled Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Ors. v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 16 July 2018 and 22 November 2018, restraining the Defendant No.3 along with another related party from selling counterfeit/infringing products bearing Plaintiffs’ Logo Mark on the website <www.amazon.in>.

48. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have intentionally sold the Infringing goods of Defendant No.1’s on Defendant No.3’s website. It is the admitted case of Defendant No.3 that orders for the Infringing product of the Defendant No.1 are being fulfilled by Defendant No.2.

49. It is clear from an overall comparison that the Defendants, with clear dishonesty, has sold products bearing a logo mark which are both identical to, and/or are a close dishonest imitation of, the Plaintiffs’ Logo Mark. Furthermore, from a bare comparison of the marks, it is clear that the Defendants have made every effort to copy each and every element of the Plaintiffs’ Logo Mark. Furthermore, the purpose of the Defendant No.1 by 50. adopting the Infringing Logo Mark which is identical/similar to the Plaintiff’s Logo Mark is to create confusion at the first instance and take benefit of the initial interest created due to the similarity in both the logo marks. Such continued Infringing Activities of the Defendants are contrary to the provisions of the TM Act and the common law rights of the Plaintiffs and is likely to result in the dilution, diminution, and eventual erosion of the tremendous goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ BHPC Marks. The Defendant No.1 has no excuse whatsoever or reason to 51. adopt the Infringing Logo Mark. An unwary consumer having imperfect re-collection is liable to confuse the Defendant No.1’s Infringing Logo Mark, as used on its apparel products, with that of the Plaintiffs or vice versa, on account of the overall similarities existing between the two. It is a clear calculated attempt of the Defendant No.1 to purely to mislead consumers and piggyback on the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs in the market. This despite the Plaintiffs registering its brand with the Brand Service Registry offered by the Defendant No.3. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 It is also relevant that, at least in the facts of this case, 52. Defendant No.3 is not merely a market place, and in fact is practicing the role of supplying the Infringing Counterfeit Products of the Defendant No.1. Admittedly, Defendant No.2 is the entity which is responsible for fulfilling the orders for these Infringing Products, which only implies that these Infringing products are stocked by the Defendant No.2 for further sale through the website of Defendant No.3. inevitably and undeniably,

53. The adoption and user of the Infringing Logo Mark constitutes an infringement/violation of the statutory rights of the Plaintiffs under Section 29 of the TM Act and under Section 51 of the Copyright Act. It is noteworthy that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are both offering similar and/or allied products, which are sold through the same trade channels and targeted at the same consumer base. Therefore, Defendant No.1’s use of Infringing Logo Mark, would cause confusion and deception amongst consumers with imperfect recollection. These activities of the Defendants are, thus, bound to lead to passing off, dilution of goodwill of the Plaintiffs as well as unfair competition. The same has resulted in immense and substantial harm, loss and injury to the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the act of the Defendants amount to an infringement of the registered Plaintiffs’ Trade Mark and Copyright. It is, therefore, imperative that the infringing and illegal activities of the Defendants be restrained.” (Emphasis supplied)

22. Apropos Amazon Tech, the present appellant/Defendant 1 in the suit, the allegations are as under: (i) Amazon Tech, “under manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which its brand ‘Symbol’, (was) bear the infringing logo mark ” (in para 41) (though the same paragraph goes on to assert, shortly thereafter, that “Defendant No. 3, Amazon Seller Service Pvt Ltd, (was) selling Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 and offering for sale products of Defendant No. 1 under the trade mark ‘Symbol’ bearing the infringing logo mark”). (ii) To the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge, Amazon Tech was selling its products on the website of ASSPL through Cloudtail. (para 41) (iii) Lifestyle purchased some products of Amazon Tech from the website of ASSPL, which contained the infringing mark. (para 46) (iv) Cloudtail and ASSPL had intentionally sold the products of Amazon Tech on ASSPL’s website. (para 48) (v) It was the admitted case of ASSPL that orders for the infringing product of Amazon Tech were being fulfilled by Cloudtail. (para 48) (vi) The defendants, with clear dishonesty, were selling products bearing the infringing mark. (para 49) (vii) The purpose of Amazon Tech, in adopting the infringing mark, was to create confusion and take benefit of the initial interest created due to the similarity of both logo marks. (para 50) Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (viii) Admittedly, Cloudtail was responsible for fulfilling orders for the infringing counterfeit products of Amazon Tech. (para 52)

23. The upshot of the above assertions, which alone seek to incriminate the appellant Amazon Tech, is that the products bearing the infringing mark were of Amazon Tech, and were sold on ASSPL’s website through Cloudtail. Else, there is no averment to the effect that was Amazon Tech’s mark. Rather, it is categorically asserted, in para 41 of the plaint, that Amazon Tech’s mark was ‘SYMBOL’.

24. In the absence of any averment to the effect that was the appellant’s mark, the very foundation of Lifestyle’s case against Amazon Tech, as set up in the plaint, is that the goods, bearing the allegedly infringing logo, were of Amazon Tech.

25. As against the above assertions, Lifestyle, in its plaint, also averred thus: (i) The assertion that Amazon Tech was selling its products on the website of ASSPL through Cloudtail was only “to the best of Lifestyle’s knowledge”. (para 41) (ii) Lifestyle was not certain about the exact and actual relation between the defendants. (para 41) Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (iii) Lifestyle was not certain about the exact constitution of the defendants. (para 42) (iv) The trademark ‘Symbol’ was the private label of Amazon Tech. (para 45) (v) The invoice issued by ASSPL to Lifestyle, against the purchase made, by it, of the goods bearing the impugned mark, only disclosed the name and details of Cloudtail. (para 46)

26. Except for a bald averment that the goods, purchased by Lifestyle by placing an order on ASSPL, and received under an invoice which only named Cloudtail, belonged to Amazon Tech, there is nothing to so indicate.

27. Notably, there is, in the entire plaint, no averment that the goods bearing the allegedly infringing mark, sold on the website of ASSPL, were manufactured by Amazon Tech.

28. The averments with respect to damages were contained in paras 54 to 57 of the plaint, which read thus: “54. Notwithstanding the level of gain made by the Defendants from its Infringing Activities, the Plaintiffs will suffer direct and Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 indirect monetary loss and damage. It is submitted that by engaging in the Infringing Activities, the Defendants are able to make sales and get a foothold in the market, and thereby, learn more money and profit, at the expense of the Plaintiff. Customers searching for the Plaintiffs’ apparel products, and seeing the Defendants’ apparel products, and mistakenly believe that the Defendants are in some way related/associated with the Claim tips and purchasing the Defendants’ apparel products. This increases the revenue of the Defendants, while causing financial loss to the Plaintiffs.

55. It is submitted that the damages/losses (a) were/are directly attributable to the unauthorised and illegal activities of the Defendants; and (b) were/are foreseeable by the Defendants to be the laws/damage that would because to the Plaintiff’s because of its Infringing Activities, and have arisen in the usual course of business. It is submitted that the damages/losses in above are of a nature that would put the Plaintiff’s in the same position that it would have been at the Defendants not engaged in the impugned activities.

56. In your above referred fact, it is ample clear that the Infringing Activities of the Defendants are wilful. Apart from the above, the Plaintiff are also entitled to damages towards the moral prejudice costs to it by the illegal activities of the Defendants. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary and punitive damages from the Defendants. Moreover, the Plaintiff are also entitled to the costs of the Commercial Suit, including attorney’s fees. The Plaintiff estimate that it has and/or is likely to have 57. suffered damages of over ₹ 2,00,00,000. In addition to the damages that the plaintiffs will suffer due to the above illegal and impugned acts of the Defendants, all classes of consumers and the society at large will face negative consequences of such Infringing Activities being carried out by the Defendants herein.”

29. Following these averments, para 62 of the plaint, which dealt with valuation of the suit, averred, inter alia, as under: “62. The value of the Suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction in respect of the reliefs as prayed for is as follows: ***** Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 For a decree of damages as prayed for in prayer (e) (e) of paragraph 63 below, the relief is collectively valued for the purposes of court jurisdiction at ₹ 2,00,05,000/-and court fees of ₹ 2,00,050/- is affixed thereon;” fees and

30. The prayers in the suit, insofar as they claim to damages, read: In the circumstances aforesaid, “64. respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass: ***** the Plaintiffs most A decree for damages amounting to ₹ 2,00,05,000/- (e) or any such amount as found due in favour of the Plaintiffs. There Plaintiffs submits that the valuation of damages is an approximate figure only, and the Plaintiffs undertakes to pay further Court fees as may be determined by this Hon’ble Court upon the damages that the Plaintiffs is able to prove in the course of trial.” Replication of Lifestyle to written statement of Cloudtail

31. As against the above averments in the plaint, paras 11, 12 and 15 to 17 of the replication of Lifestyle to the written statement of Cloudtail, aver thus: “11. The contents of paragraphs 16 and 18, except for those that already form part of the record, of the Written Statement are wrong and denied. Defendant No.2 has listed the product bearing the Infringing Mark only to usurp the goodwill and reputation subsisting in the Plaintiffs’ BHPC Logo mark. It is humbly submitted that whether the Plaintiffs have approached any alleged redressal mechanism of Defendant No.3 or not, is not a defence of Defendant No.2 as they are the suppliers of the infringing products against whom the Plaintiffs can take infringement and passing off action even in case of a single instance of such illicit activity. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the Plaintiffs seek leave of the Hon’ble Court to rely on the contents of the present Replication and Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Para-wise reply to ‘Para-Wise Reply’ of Written Statement indulged in activities amounting

12. The contents of paragraphs 19 to 22 of the Written Statement are wrong and denied and the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated. It is reiterated that Defendant No.2 has infringement of the Plaintiffs’ well-known trade marks and copyright. Defendant No.2 has manufactured, sold, or distributed Infringing Products bearing the Impugned Mark. It is also submitted that Defendant No.2 has listed Infringing Products containing the Impugned mark, with the knowledge of nature of goods, amounting to infringement and/or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ rights in their trade mark under the TM Act and/or the Copyright Act. It is reiterated that Plaintiff No.2 is the licensee of Plaintiff No.1 and Mr. M.K is authorized to sign the Plaint and Replication. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the Plaintiffs seeks leave of the Hon’ble Court to rely on the contents of the present Replication and Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs. *****

15. The contents of paragraphs 32 to 34 of the Written Statement, except for those that already form part of the record, are wrong and denied and the contents of paragraphs 44 to 47 of the Plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated. It is reiterated that Defendant No.2 has adopted the Infringing Mark, which has been admitted by the Defendant No.2. It is reiterated that the Plaintiffs have placed on record sufficient evidence to show that the Infringing Products which bears the Impugned Mark was sold by Defendant No.2. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the Plaintiffs seek leave of the Hon’ble Court to rely on the contents of the present Replication and Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs. The contents of paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Written 16. Statement are wrong, repetitive and denied and the contents of paragraphs 48 to 53 of the Plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated. It is reiterated that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have intentionally sold the Infringing Products containing the Impugned mark on Defendant No.3’s website. It is reiterated that Defendant No.3 has admitted that the orders for the Product have been fulfilled by Defendant No.2. It is further reiterated that Defendant No.2 is piggybacking on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs. It is submitted that in light of the admissions made by Defendant No.2, it is liable under TM Act and Copyright Act for infringement and passing off. It is reiterated that substantial harm has been caused to the Plaintiffs due to the infringing acts of Defendant No.2. For the Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the Plaintiffs seek leave of the Hon’ble Court to rely on the contents of the present Replication and Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs.

17. The contents of paragraph 38 of the Written Statement are wrong and denied and the contents of paragraphs 54 to 56 of the Plaint are reaffirmed and reiterated. It is reiterated that Defendant No.2 has willfully engaged in infringing activity and caused the Plaintiffs’ the Plaintiffs, piggybacking on damages reputation and goodwill. It is reiterated that the Plaintiffs have suffered losses, which are attributable to infringing activities of Defendants. It is submitted that in light of this, the Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary and punitive damages and cost. It is denied that the present suit is frivolous and/ or vindictive against Defendant No.2. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the Plaintiffs seek leave of the Hon’ble Court to rely on the contents of the present Replication and Plaint filed by the Plaintiffs.”

32. In the above paragraphs from its replication to the written statement of Cloudtail, therefore, Lifestyle asserts, emphatically, that (i) Cloudtail was the supplier of the infringing products (para 11), (ii) Cloudtail had indulged in activities amounting infringement of Lifestyle’s trade marks (para 12), (iii) Cloudtail had manufactured, sold and distributed the products bearing the allegedly infringing mark (para 12), (iv) Cloudtail had adopted the infringing mark (para 15), and (v) Cloudtail was piggybacking on the goodwill and reputation of Lifestyle (para 16). Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

33. Thus, in the replication, Lifestyle squarely lays the blame for manufacturing as well as selling the goods bearing the allegedly infringing mark on Cloudtail. Related contentions of learned Senior Counsel for Amazon Tech

34. These aspects are of pivotal importance because it is the contention, of learned Senior Counsel for Amazon Tech, that the entire case against Amazon Tech is moonshine. The specific case of learned Senior Counsel is that the role of Amazon Tech, in the entire imbroglio, was limited to licensing, to Cloudtail, the right to use the SYMBOL mark – of which Amazon Tech admits itself to be the proprietor – on the goods sold by it on the website of ASSPL. Amazon Tech denies that it has anything to do with the mark, or that it had ever authorized the use of the said mark on any goods. Nor are the goods sold by Cloudtail – T-shirts and the like – bearing the SYMBOL mark of Amazon Tech, manufactured by Amazon Tech. They are manufactured and sold by Cloudtail, and, under the licence granted by Amazon Tech, carry the SYMBOL mark. If, therefore, they carry any other mark, including , Amazon Tech submits that it has nothing to do with it.

35. Apart from their grievances at that Amazon Tech having been proceeded ex parte, learned Senior Counsel emphatically contend that Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 there is neither any evidence, nor, for that matter, any finding, either, of the learned Single Judge, of Amazon Tech being engaged in any infringing activity. The infringement, if any, was committed by Cloudtail, for which the suit already stands decreed against Cloudtail for ₹ 4,78,484/-, vide order dated 2 March 2023 (to which we would allude in greater detail later in this order). There was, therefore, no justification, whatsoever, to award, against the appellant Amazon Tech, any damages whatsoever, let alone damages as colossal as ₹ 336,02,87,000/-.

36. Learned Senior Counsel also submit that there is no averment, whatsoever, in the pleadings of Lifestyle, which could justify these damages. They point out that, even in the plaint, following the somewhat vague allegations against Amazon Tech, the total damages computed by Lifestyle, against all defendants, is only ₹ 2,00,05,000/-. Trajectory of the suit before the learned Single Judge

37. In view of the objection raised by Mr. Kaul and Mr. Nigam against Amazon Tech having been proceeded ex parte, it would also be necessary to chart the trajectory of the proceedings in the suit. To the extent relevant, this may be outlined thus: (i) On 12 October 2020, summons in CS (Comm) 443/2020 and notice in IA 9254/2020 were directed to be issued. Summons and notice were accepted by learned Counsel on behalf of Cloudtail and ASSPL. Summons and notice were Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 directed to be served on the appellant through e-mail and Whatsapp, returnable for 2 February 2021. (ii) On 23 December 2020, an affidavit of service was filed by Lifestyle, deposing that a complete set of the paper book in the suit, including the plaint, applications and documents, along with the order dated 12 October 2020 had been served on Amazon US through courier and Speed Post. (iii) On 1 March 2021, apropos service of CS (Comm) 443/2020 on Amazon US, it was observed that (a) the affidavit of service filed by the plaintiff reflected service of the entire paper book of the suit on Amazon US through Speed Post and Courier, (b) however, Process Fee had not been filed with the Registry for service on Amazon US, as a result of which summons of CS (Comm) 443/2020 were not served on Amazon US as per the order dated 12 October 2020 of the Court, and (c) Lifestyle was directed to comply with the order, whereupon process was directed to be issued returnable for 22 April 2021 to ascertain completion of service. (iv) On 25 March 2021, another affidavit of service, of that date, i.e. 25 March 2021, was filed by Lifestyle, deposing that “the plant, documents, applications filed by the Plaintiff, all the Orders of this Hon’ble in the Commercial Suit along with the Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 summons issued by this Hon’ble” had been served on Amazon US, vide e-mail dated 8 March 2021. However, even till then, Process Fee, for issuance of summons to Amazon US by the Registry, had not been filed by Lifestyle, so that there could be no question of Amazon US having been served with the summons issued by the Court. (v) On 10 March 2021, Lifestyle filed Process Fee for effecting service on Amazon US. The Process Fee was returned under objections as it was delayed. The Process Fee was refiled on 17 March 2021 with an application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned on 17 March 2021. Simultaneously, Summons to Amazon US were issued via International e- mail/Whatsapp for 22 April 2021. This was again noted vide File Noting dated 16 April 2021 of the Registry. (vi) On 7 July 2021, it was noted that there was no report regarding service of CS (Comm) 443/2020 and IA 9254/2020 on Amazon US. Affidavit of service was directed to be filed. The matter was renotified before the Court on 13 July 2021. (vii) Nothing further was filed by Lifestyle. (viii) On 13 July 2021, the learned Judge was on leave, and the matter was renotified for 20 September 2021. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (ix) On 20 April 2022, it was noted that Amazon US had not entered appearance despite service and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. ASSPL was directed, by the said order, to place on record, on affidavit, the relationship between Amazon Tech and ASSPL, and Cloudtail was directed to file an affidavit enclosing the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. These affidavits were duly filed. (x) Amazon US, therefore, was never present proceedings, on any date. (xi) On 2 March 2023, CS (Comm) 443/2020 was decreed against Cloudtail for ₹ 4,78,484/- and ASSPL was deleted from the array of parties as no relief had been sought against it. As Amazon US had already been proceeded ex parte, after this date, there were no defendants before the Court on any date of hearing, and the plaintiff, i.e. Lifestyle, alone was represented, till the impugned judgment and decree came to be passed. As much turns on the order dated 2 March 2023, we deem it necessary to reproduce the order in entirety, thus: “1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit, inter alia, to restrain Defendants from using and/or reproducing in any manner whatsoever, including manufacture, sale and distribution of apparel products or any other products – bearing device/logo mark infringing [hereinafter “Infringing Device Mark”], which violates Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights in their registered logo/device marks in several classes being – Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 and ‘ and the Copyright Act, 1956. ’ under Trade Marks Act, 1999

2. Plaintiff have arrayed Amazon Technologies, Inc. [Defendant No. 1 – hereinafter “Amazon”], as a party to the present suit alleging that they are manufacturing/offering for sale/ selling, inter alia, apparel products under the brand name ‘Symbol’ bearing the Infringing Device Mark. It is further about that Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd [Defendant No. 2 – hereinafter “Cloudtail”], is conducting its business on the website www.amazon.in an online marketplace, operated by Amazon Seller Service Pvt Ltd [Defendant No. 3 – hereinafter “Amazon Seller”]. It is alleged that Cloudtail coupled with Amazon manufacturer/offer for sale/sell, inter alia, apparel products bearing the brand name ‘Symbol’ coupled with the Infringing Device Mark on the website of Amazon Seller. On 12th October, 2020, and add interim injunction 3. was granted in favour of Plaintiff, relevant portion where of is extracted below: “12. Considering that the defendant No. 1’s is a separate entity, this Court is prima facie of the view that the present suit would be maintainable. From the averments in the plaint as also the documents filed therewith, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no ex parte ad interim injunction is granted, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff. Consequently, until the next date of hearing, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, there Partners, Directors, Proprietors, Shareholders, Affiliates, Licensees, Agents etc are restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any products or reproducing or using in any manner whatsoever the infringing logo mark which is identically/deceptively similar to the Plaintiff logo mark “BEVERLY HILLS POLO Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 . In the meantime, defendant No. CLUB” 3 is directed to take down the products of the defendant No. 1 with the infringing logo within 72 hours of the URLs being provided by the Plaintiff.”

4. Amazon has not appeared despite service and has been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20th April, 2022. On the same date, injunction order dated 12th October, 2020 was confirmed and made absolute till the pendency of the present suit. Later, on 5th September, 2022, Cloudtail made a statement, that they are willing to suffer a decree of injunction and prayed that the Court may consider awarding reasonable damages in favour of Plaintiff. Parties were referred unfortunately, was unsuccessful. to mediation which,

5. Mr. Nischal Anand, counsel for Cloudtail, reiterated his stand as noted on 5th September, 2022. He emphasises that Cloudtail has stopped using Infringing Device Mark or any marks similar thereto and the same was used only for a brief period from year 2015 till July 2020, and in this period, on account of sale of infringing products, Cloudtail earned a revenue of only INR 23,92,420/- on which the profit margin is no more than 20%. He submits that the Court may award damages on the basis of above noted figures. Mr J. Sai Deepak, counsel for Plaintiff, do not dispute the sales figures and agrees that for award of damages, aforenoted data is sufficient and no further evidence is required.

6. At this juncture, it must also be noted that Mr. Anand submits that the liability for damages should be solely fixed on Cloudtail and not Amazon. He states that the decision to use the Impugned Device Mark was solely that of Cloudtail and Amazon has no liability in the matter. Reliance is placed on Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement dated 23rd December, 2015 [hereinafter “Agreement”] to demonstrate that Amazon’s Mark ‘Symbol’ was licensed to Cloudtail and the use thereof, in relation to the infringing products was entirely that of Cloudtail. He further highlights that under the Agreement Cloudtail is liable to indemnify Amazon for any Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 loss arising from any breach on their part. Mr Sai Deepak refutes the above statement and argues that the Infringing Device Mark is not a subject matter of the Agreement between Amazon and Cloudtail and damages are liable to be awarded against both Amazon and Cloudtail.

7. The obligations arising from the Agreement referred above between Amazon and Cloudtail cannot bind Plaintiffs and consequently, the admission of liability on part of Cloudtail cannot bind Plaintiffs. They cannot be denied the opportunity to seek damages from Amazon, if any. Considering the above and since there is no contest to the sales figures for computation of damages, the Court proceeds to pass a decree qua Cloudtail.

8. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of Plaintiff against Defendant No. 2/Cloudtail, in terms of paragraph No. 64 prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Towards use of Infringing Device Market, accepting the stand of Cloudtail that profit margin is only 20%, Plaintiffs are awarded damages of 20% of INR 23,92,420/- i.e., INR 4,78,484/-. Since Amazon has not contested the suit and use of products bearing the Infringing Device Mark was discontinued in July 2020, prior to the filing of the suit, no costs are being awarded.

9. Decree Sheet be drawn up against Defendant No. 2. bearing This brings us

10. the remaining Defendants. Amazon Seller is an intermediary, on whose platform, Infringing Device Mark were products offered/listed. Ms Sneha Jain, counsel for Amazon Seller, requests that the said Defendant be deleted from the array of parties as they have complied with all directions issued by this Court. She states that in future, as and when directed by this Court, listings qua products bearing Infringing Device Mark shall be removed. She adds that no substantive relief is sought against them. Accordingly, taking her statement on record, and binding Defendant No. 3/Amazon Seller, to the same, they are deleted from the array of parties. Plaintiff Sir directed to file an amended memo of parties for the next date of hearing.

11. Now the suit has to proceed ex parte qua Defendant No. 1/Amazon. Mr. Sai Deepak seeks leave of the Court to produce additional documents. Let the same be done within three weeks’ from today. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

12. List on 04th May, 2023.” (Emphasis supplied) (xii) After 2 March 2023, Lifestyle alone appeared before the learned Single Judge. (xiii) Trial of the suit commenced after 2 March 2023. In view of Mr. Nigam’s objection that the entire trial, and subsequent proceedings, took place in the absence of Amazon Tech, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the orders passed after the said date, in their entirety, thus: “Order dated 25 May 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. … Plaintiffs Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Through: Sidhant Goel and Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Advocates. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS. Through: None. ..Defendants CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R 25.05.2023

1. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, counsel for Plaintiffs, states that pursuant to the leave granted on 02nd March, 2023, Plaintiff has filed the additional documents and would now like to lead ex-parte evidence. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

2. Plaintiffs are permitted to file a list of witnesses within a period of one week from today along with the affidavit(s) of evidence. Mr. Sai Deepak submits that the witnesses to be deposed are not residents of India. Considering the same, it is directed that as and when Plaintiffs request for recording of. witnesses’ statement(s) through video conferencing mechanism, the Joint Registrar shall consider the same and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.

3. evidence on 12th July, 2023. List before the Joint Registrar for recording of

4. List before the Court on 7th August, 2023. SANJEEV NARULA, J.” “Order dated 5 July 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 and I.A. 11923/2023 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Through: Mr. Sidhant Goel and ...Plaintiffs Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Advocates (M: 9716746496). versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS.Defendants Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R 05.07.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 11923/2023 (for recording of evidence through video conferencing) Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 This is an application seeking permission to lead ex- 2. parte evidence of one witness through video conferencing.

3. Considering the fact that the witness is from the United Kingdom and Defendant No.1 is not appearing in the matter, the permission is granted. The Joint Registrar shall record the evidence of Mr. Gavin Rawlings through Video Conferencing in terms of the applicable Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, and High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.

4. IA is disposed of. CS(COMM)-443/202020

5. List on the date already fixed. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 19 July 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. …..Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sidhant Goel and Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Advocates (M: 9716746496). versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS....Defendants Through: Mr. S. N. Jha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil Kamwal, (M: Advocates 9810044429) for Applicant. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R 19.07.2023 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs 2. seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark, copyright, passing off, dilution of goodwill, unfair competition, etc. Vide order dated 5th July, 2023, this Court had 3. permitted evidence of Mr. Gavin Rawlings, located in the U.K., to be recorded through video conferencing in terms of the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 (hereinafter ’VC Rules’). The Joint Registrar has placed the matter before this 4. Court for appointing a remote point co-ordinator and fixation of his fee. It is submitted by Mr. Goel, Id. Counsel that in 5. terms of Rule 5.3.1 of the VC Rules an official of the Indian Consulate or High Commission in the UK would have to be appointed as a remote point coordinator for the purpose of recording of evidence. is directed Accordingly,

6. the High Commissioner, High Commission of India, London may appoint an official of the High Commission for being the remote point coordinator to enable recording of evidence through video conferencing. The fee of the said coordinator is fixed at £500 for

7. one session. The Plaintiff

8. the High Commission of India for nomination of the remote point coordinator. to coordinate with List on 2nd August, 2023 for recording of evidence

9. through video conferencing before the Joint Registrar.

10. List before Court on 7th August, 2023. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 2 August 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV &ANR. ….Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Advocates versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS .Defendants Through: None CORAM: JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK (DHJS) O R D E R 02.08.2023 Commencement of evidence: 2:15 pm Conclusion of evidence: 3:40 pm No of pages – 03 PW-5 Mr. Gavin Rawlings is examined through Video Conferencing vide separate proceedings. Scanned copy of the statement signed by the witness at remote point is received through email and same is also signed by the undersigned. By way of separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff recorded today, PE stands closed. Matter is ripe for final arguments. Put up before Hon’ble Court on date already fixed i.e. 07.08.2023 for further directions. PURSHOTAM PATHAK (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)” “Order dated 7 August 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Through: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Abhishek Kotnala, Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma, Mr. Aditya Goel and (M: Ms. Avni 9716746496). Sharma, Advocates versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS .....Defendants Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R 07.08.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit for infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off has been filed seeking protection of the following "BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB" mark, logo and the accompanying device (hereinafter “BHPC marks”):

3. Plaintiff No.1-Lifestyle Equities C.V., based in the Netherlands, owns the said mark and also globally licenses it. Plaintiff No.2- Lifestyle Licensing B.V., which is a group concern, is the master licensee of Plaintiff No.1. It enters into license agreements with other companies in respect of BHPC marks in various jurisdictions.

4. The said mark has been licensed in India to various third parties. The grievance of the Plaintiffs is that there were various products being sold on the www.amazon.in platform with a logo which was identical to the BHPC marks. As per the Plaintiffs, further enquiries revealed that Defendant No.1- Amazon Technologies, Inc. based in Seattle, USA is using the infringing device mark on Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 apparels. Defendant No.2 in the suit- Cloudtail India Private Limited is also a retailer who was reflected as the seller of the goods bearing infringing mark on the Amazon website which is hosted and maintained by Amazon Seller Service Private Limited-Defendant No.3.

5. On the first date of hearing in the suit, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 12th October, 2020 by the Court in the following terms: “9. None appears on behalf of defendant No.1 despite advance notice however, learned counsel for defendant No.3, that is, Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. enters appearance and states that in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff being CS(COMM) 1015/2018 Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Ors. vs. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 16th July, 2018, this Court had already directed the defendant No.3 to take down the URLs wherein the brand/logo/device mark of the plaintiff is copied including those mentioned in the plaint and as and when the plaintiff gives any further information in this regard. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 states that since the defendant No.3 is covered by the said order of this Court dated 16th July, 2018, no fresh suit is maintainable and the plaintiff was only required to intimate the same to the defendant No.3 and hence the present suit is mala fide.

10. Learned counsel for the defendant No.2 states that the defendant No.2 has already taken down the listing and will further investigate into the matter and take down any further listing which is either on the defendant No.3’s platform or any other platform.

11. Case of the plaintiff is that in the earlier suit, that is, CS (COMM) No.1015/2018, the plaintiff had impleaded parties who were selling their products on the defendant No.3’s listing by infringing the plaintiff’s device mark and the copyright and in the earlier suit the defendant No.1 was not a party and in the present suit, not only does the plaintiff seek delisting of the brand of the defendant No.1 from the defendant No.3’s platform but also seeks the relief of injunction against the defendant No.1 which is infringing and diluting the plaintiff’s mark by selling its products on a much cheaper rates representing to be that of the plaintiff. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

12. Considering that the defendant No.1 is a separate entity, this Court is prima facie of the view that the present suit would be maintainable. From the averments in the plaint as also the documents filed therewith, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour and in case no exparte ad-interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, their Partners, Directors, Shareholders, Affiliates, Licensees, Agents etc. are restrained from for sell, advertising, directly or selling, offering indirectly dealing in any products or reproducing or using in any manner whatsoever the infringing logo Proprietors, identically/deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s logo mark “BEVERLY HILLS In the meantime, CS(COMM) POLO CLUB” 443/2020 defendant No.3 is directed to take down the products of the defendant No.1 with the infringing logo within 72 hours of the URLs being provided by the plaintiff.”

6. Since Defendant No.1 did not appear despite service, vide order dated 20th April, 2022, the said Defendant was proceeded ex parte, and an affidavit was sought from Defendant No.3 as to the exact relationship between various Amazon group companies. Defendant No.2 was also directed to place an affidavit on record giving details of the total stock of products sold by the said Defendant. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “3. Let an affidavit be filed by the Defendant No.3 - Amazon Seller Service Private Limited giving exact of whether Defendant No.l- Amazon details Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 is, in any manner, related Technologies, Inc. Defendant No.3, or any of its subsidiary or holding companies. The affidavit shall also state as to whether Defendant No.l-Amazon Technologies, Inc. is, in any manner, related to Amazon.com, Inc.

4. Let an affidavit be filed by Defendant No.2 giving details as to the total stock of products sold by the Defendant No.2 on Defendant No.3’s platform, under the impugned logo and motif which was injuncted by the Court, vide order dated 12th October, 2020. Similar affidavit shall also be filed by Defendant No.3 as to the total sales made under the mark ’Symbol’ as also the impugned logo on its platform. Let the said affidavits be filed, within four weeks. Let Defendant No.2 also place before this 5. Court the agreement between itself and Defendant No.l- Amazon Technologies, Inc., which is stated to be the owner of the mark/label ’Symbol’, in respect of which Defendant No.2 is a licencee, as pleaded in the written statement. Both the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 confirm 6. that, there are no products with the impugned logo which are now sold on the platform of Defendant No.l-Amazon Technologies, Inc. Accordingly, the interim injunction is made absolute during the pendency of the present suit.”

7. A perusal of the above order shows that during the pendency of the suit, the interim injunction was confirmed. In view of the order of the Court, an affidavit has been placed on record by Defendant No.3 explaining how the Defendants are related to each other. Moreover, Defendant No.2 filed an affidavit as to sales. The Court, vide 2nd March, 2023 order decreed the suit against Defendant No.2 directing payment of a sum of Rs.4,78,484/- as damages for the infringing use of the logo.

8. Further, Defendant No.3 was deleted vide the said order as it claimed to be an intermediary which was selling the products of Defendant No. 2 and no substantive relief was sought against it. Defendant No.1 is claimed to be the owner of the

9. infringing Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 logo/mark which is known by the name ‘SYMBOL’. Insofar as Defendant No.2 is concerned, the suit already stands decreed. Insofar as Defendant No. 3 is concerned, the same has been deleted vide order dated 2nd March, 2023. In view of this position, the Plaintiff led its evidence 10. on the question of damages/rendition of accounts of profits. The evidence of the following witnesses has been filed on record: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Mr. Eli Haddad; Mr. Sanjay Shetty; Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri; Mr. Arvind Dhingra; Mr. Gavin Rawlings Today, Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Sr. Counsel has

11. addressed some submissions. Since Defendant No.1 is already proceeded ex parte 12. in the matter, On the next date the Court would consider as to whether the witnesses ought to appear for the purposes of being examined by the Court.

13. List for further hearing on 31st October, 2023. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 6 October 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 and I.A. 19609/2023 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel and Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Advs. (M:9818432059) versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 O R D E R 06.10.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 19609/2023 (for direction) in CS(COMM)-443/2020 The present application filed by the Plaintiff seeks 2. the fixing of a specific time for hearing, considering that some of the witnesses will be traveling from abroad. Accordingly, list this matter on 31st October, 2023

3. at 3:30 pm.

4. Applications disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 1 November 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Mr. .....Plaintiffs Gaurav Through: Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Ms. Avni Sharma, Ms. Rakshita Singh & Mr. Aditya Goel, Advs (M. 9818432059) versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 01.11.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

2. Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff – M/s. Lifestyle Equities on the quantum of damages that the Plaintiff is entitled in the suit, have been partly made by Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Sr. Counsel. Two witnesses of the Plaintiff, Mr. Eli Haddad, Managing Director of Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 & Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal India Private Limited are present physically in Court. Two other witnesses of the Plaintiff-Mr. Gavin Rawlings & Mr. Sanjay Shetty are present virtually before the Court.

3. During the course of hearing, the report of Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri has been perused by the Court, and queries have been addressed to both Mr. Eli Haddad and Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri. The Plaintiffs have also presented a T-Shirt, which according to the Plaintiffs, bears a mark similar to the Plaintiff’s mark and marketed by the Defendant on its online marketplace under the brand name ‘SYMBOL’. The said T-shirt has been handed over to the Court. It is submitted that the said brand name is used by the Defendant Amazon Technologies to market its products, which are predominantly apparel products. Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Sr. counsel has 4. addressed submissions on the aspect of damages. The hearing is inconclusive. PW-1 shall file on affidavit the details of the actual 5. royalties remitted along with actual sales – both online and offline separately, on an annual basis, received from its licensees from the date of execution of the license agreement till date.

6. Witnesses are permitted physically or virtually on the next date of hearing. to be present either

8. This shall be a treated as a part heard matter. List on 19th December, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 19 December 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 CS(COMM) 443/2020 .....Plaintiffs LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Through: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda Sr. Adv with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepanka Mishra, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Ms. Anvi Sharma, Mr. Adiya Goel, Advs. (M. 9873021858) versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None JUSTICE PRATHIBAM. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 19.12.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Due to lack of time, the Court is unable to hear

2. further submissions in this matter. The matter shall continue to be treated as a part-

3. heard matter.

4. List for further hearing on 27th February 2024. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 27 February 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Mr. .....Plaintiffs Through: Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Mr. Vivek P Singh, Mr. Karmanya D Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Sharma, Ms. Nikita Jaitly & Ms. Avni Sharma, Advs. (M: 9873021858) versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 27.02.2024

3. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. List for hearing on 25th April, 2024 at 3:30 pm. This is a part-heard matter. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 25 April 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 .....Plaintiffs LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Gaurav Through: Mr. Pachnanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Ms. Avni Sharma, Mr. Vivek Pratap Singh, Advocates (8956009494. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: Appearance not given. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 25.04.2024 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Senior Counsel for the

2. Plaintiffs has continued his submissions. List for further hearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs on

3. 29th May, 2024.

4. On the said date, if any product of the Plaintiffs has been filed in the present case, the same shall be sent to the Court.

5. This is a part-heard matter. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 29 May 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Mr. .....Plaintiffs Through: Gaurav Pachnanda, SA, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Misra, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Mr. Vivek P Singh, Ms. Avni Sharma, Advs. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ..... Defendant Through: None. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 29.05.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Oral submissions have been heard and have been concluded by ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Pachnanda. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 List for filing statement of actual costs, along with

3. requisite documentation on 5th July, 2024.

4. This is a part-heard matter. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 5 July 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Mr. .....Plaintiffs Gaurav Through: Pachnanda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Ms. Jyotika Jain, Mr. Deepankar, Mr. Mishra, Mr. Vivek Pratap Singh, Ms. Avni Sharma versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 05.07.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The statement of costs has been placed on record in the form of an affidavit. List for consideration of judgments and for closing submissions.

3. List on 12th July, 2024. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.” “Order dated 12 July 2024 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 443/2020 LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. Mr. .....Plaintiffs Gaurav Through: Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Ms. Avni Sharma, Mr. Vivek Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhishek Katnal & Ms. Jyotika Jain, Advs. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant Through: None. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH CORAM: O R D E R 12.07.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. The compilations and the submissions which have

2. been handed over by the Plaintiffs are taken on record.

3. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.”

38. From these orders, the position that emerges is as under: (i) On 25 May 2023, Lifestyle was granted permission to file a list of witnesses within one week with a request for recording evidence by video conferencing in the event of the witnesses being outside India. The matter was directed to be listed before the learned JR for recording of evidence on 12 July 2023. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (ii) On 5 July 2023, the Court granted permission for recording of the evidence of Mr. Gavin Rawlings through Video Conferencing. (iii) On 12 July 2023, the learned JR completed recording of evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and renotified the matter before the Court on 19 July 2023 for appointment of a remote point coordinator for recording of the evidence of Mr. Gavin Rawlings. (iv) On July 2023, the Court directed the High Commissioner, High Commission of India, London, to appoint an official of the High Commission as the remote point coordinator for recording of the evidence of Mr. Gavin Rawlings through video conferencing, and renotified the matter for 7 August 2023 for recording of Mr. Rawling’s evidence. (v) The recording of the evidence of Mr. Rawlings was conducted and closed on 2 August 2023. Plaintiff’s evidence being concluded, the matter was directed to be listed for final arguments on 7 August 2023. (vi) On 7 August 2023, the learned Single Judge noted, in para 9, that “Defendant No. 1 (the appellant Amazon Tech) is claimed to be the owner of the infringing logo/mark which is known by the name ‘SYMBOL’. This was apparently incorrect, Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 as it was not even the pleaded case of Lifestyle that the mark was known by the name SYMBOL. Part arguments of learned Senior Counsel for Lifestyle were heard, and the matter renotified for 31 October 2023. Lifestyle’s witnesses were directed to be present in Court. (vii) On 1 November 2023, Lifestyle’s witnesses were present in Court, as directed. The court addressed queries to two of the witnesses and heard Lifestyle, in part, on the aspect of damages. PW-1 was directed to place an additional affidavit on record, setting out the details of the royalties remitted by Lifestyle’s licensees along with actual sales. (viii) Oral submissions on the aspect of damages were concluded by Lifestyle on 29 May 2024 and written submissions were filed. Lifestyle was directed to file a statement of costs on 5 July 2024. (ix) On 12 July 2024, arguments of Lifestyle were concluded and judgment was reserved. (x) On 25 February 2025, the impugned judgment came to be rendered by the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

39. While recording the case of Lifestyle as set up in the plaint, the impugned judgment notes, in para 14, thus: “As per the plaint Defendant No. 1 was dealing with apparel products under the private label ‘Symbol’ consisting of a horse device mark almost identical to the BHPC logo device thereby leading to infringement and unauthorized use.” We may note, even here, this observation is incorrect. There is no averment, in the plaint, that the label ‘SYMBOL’ consisted of a horse device mark which was identical to the BHPC logo device. In fact, this position was specifically acknowledged by learned Counsel for Lifestyle as recorded in the order dated 2 March 2023, thus: “6. …Mr. Sai Deepak refutes the above statement and argues that the Infringing Device Mark is not a subject matter of the Agreement between Amazon and Cloudtail.” The licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail was, admittedly, for the mark SYMBOL. The infringing device mark is . Thus, it was admitted and acknowledged, by learned Counsel for Lifestyle, before this Court, that the mark and the mark SYMBOL, which was subject matter of the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail, were different. In fact, the specifically pleaded case of Lifestyle was that the apparel, which bore the mark SYMBOL, also carried the offending horse device mark, and not that they were the same. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

40. In para 22 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge proceeds to record and observe as under: “On 5th September 2022, it was submitted on behalf of Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 1 that they were willing to (i) suffer a decree of injunction and (ii) pay reasonable damages. The matter was then referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. It is, thus, clear that the Defendant No. 1 has also entered appearance before this Court.” (Emphasis supplied) Notably, the order of 5 September 2022 was passed after Amazon Tech was already proceeded ex parte on 20 April 2022.

41. Para 23 of the impugned judgment proceeds to observe that, by agreement of the parties, a confidentiality club was constituted vide order dated 15 September 2022, which perused the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. In actual fact, Amazon Tech was not a party to the said order, so that the constitution of the confidentiality club could not be said to have been with consent of Amazon Tech.

42. The “Analysis of Evidence” and the reasoning, in the impugned judgment, commence from para 54.

43. Paras 54 to 78 refer to the evidence led by the various PWs, PW-1 to PW-5. The learned Single Judge has quoted, extensively, (i) the evidence of PW-1 Mr. Eli Haddad, “the founder of Plaintiff No. 1 and the Managing Director of Plaintiff No. 2 (who) has personal knowledge of the business of the Plaintiffs”, Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (ii) PW-2 Mr. Sanjay Shetty, of Major Brands (India) Ltd, one of the licensees of Amazon Tech, who “was handling operations under the BHPC brands since 2014 and had personal knowledge of the various retail stores, etc, under the BHPC brand”, (iii) PW-3 Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri, a Chartered Accountant with 20 years’ experience, who deposed with regard to different models for computation of damages, as an independent expert, (iv) PW-4 Mr. Arvind Dhingra, “an independent expert engaged by the Plaintiffs to assess the impact of the Defendants’ alleged infringing activities on the business performance of BHPC”, and (v) PW-5 Mr. Gavin Rawling, also “an independent expert who has 30 years of experience in branded fashion business”.

44. Thereafter, the findings of the learned Single Judge commence from para 79.

45. One of Mr. Nigam’s and Mr. Kaul’s fundamental submissions is that the impugned judgment fastens damages on Amazon Tech without a single scrap of evidence or material to indicate that Amazon Tech was in any way involved in, much less responsible for, the affixation of the mark on the apparel sold by Cloudtail on the website of ASSPL. This submission, if correct, would render the very Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 sustainability of the impugned judgment on merits doubtful. It requires, therefore, to be examined carefully.

46. For this, it is necessary to closely study the findings of the learned Single Judge, which have concluded in the awarding of damages, against Amazon Tech, of over ₹ 336 crores. If, as contended, the awarding of damages is sans any material to indicate the complicity of Amazon Tech in the infringement of Lifestyle’s mark, by use of the mark, it would, in our opinion, be unfair as well as unjust to require any deposit to be made by the appellant.

47. Paras 79 to 83 of the impugned judgment read thus: “79. The Court has perused the pleadings, the documents placed on record and the evidence led by the Plaintiffs. As already discussed above, the Defendant No. 1 has failed to contest the suit though it has complete knowledge of the proceedings of the suit. In fact, counsel for Defendant no. 2 had appeared for Defendant no. 1 and made submissions before the Court. Thus, the pendency of the suit is well within Defendant no. 1’s knowledge. The infringing products were being sold in India and thus this Court is a Court of a competent jurisdiction. Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 are the retailers and the platforms respectively who have already suffered a permanent injunction. Defendant No. 2 has in fact suffered a decree of monetary damages and has complied with it by depositing the said amount in the Court. As is evident from the order dated 5th September, 2022, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are connected as Defendant No. 2’s Counsel represented Defendant No. 1 in the said hearing and stated in no uncertain terms the Defendant No. 1 is willing to suffer a permanent injunction. In the absence of any defence or challenge to the ownership of the brand and the infringing conduct complained of, the Court could have in fact pronounced judgment even without evidence in terms of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as also Rule 27 of the Delhi Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 (hereinafter ‘IPD Rules’). As per Rule 27 of the IPD Rules, this Court was empowered to pass a summary judgment, without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgment on principles similar to that of Order XIII-A, CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

80. The Plaintiffs have, however, claimed damages in the present suit and considering the sheer expanse of Amazon’s activities globally and in India, the Plaintiffs have chosen to lead evidence in the matter for quantifying actual damages. The evidence of all the five witnesses has been summarized above by this Court. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, two witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed - both of whom had personal knowledge as to vital aspects such as reputation of the plaintiffs’ brand, their consumer base, licensing models, trademark registrations and sale figures etc. They have deposed in respect of the activities of the Plaintiffs, the rights owned by the Plaintiffs, the agreements entered into and the claim for damages. A perusal of the infringing marks and products shows that this is a case where the ‘TRIPLE IDENTITY TEST’ for determining if a trademark has been infringed, has been satisfied: • The horse device logo is almost identical. • • The goods are identical — apparel. The consumers/trade channels are also identical. The Court has already held vide order dated 2nd March, 2023 that the Plaintiffs are entitled injunction against Defendant No. 1 from using BHPC logo in any manner whatsoever. Thus, the suit is liable to be decreed qua Defendant no. 1, in terms of paragraph 64(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. to permanent Insofar as the aspect of damages is concerned, this Court 81. has given considerable thought to this aspect. With the advent of e- Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 commerce platforms, selling of goods and services in the traditional manner has almost been disrupted. Consumers prefer to buy from the comforts of their homes. The emphasis is on quick reviewing, ordering and delivery. As time is at a premium, sales through e-commerce platforms have not merely risen but grown to astronomical limits. One of the biggest players in the e-commerce industry globally is Amazon. Defendant No. 1 - Amazon Technologies Inc. has its headquarters at Seattle, U.S.A. but runs its e-commerce businesses in several countries of the world including in India. In most major markets, the Amazon platform runs on a country-based website through its subsidiaries, associate companies or group companies. The platform www.amazon.in like other e-commerce platforms would be selling at least two kinds of products on its website i.e., i) Products belonging to third party retailers who are no way connected with any of its group or associate companies, Products which are retailed under brands belonging ii) to the principal company - Amazon Technologies Inc. or group companies or associate companies or subsidiaries. In the present case, the Defendants have failed to disclose 82. the exact relationship between each other despite specific orders. However, the admitted position is that the brand ‘Symbol’ belongs to Defendant No. 1. It was licensed to Defendant No. 2 under the Amazon Brand License and Distribution Agreement. Defendant No. 3 is also a company which is part of the Amazon group. The use of the impugned logo/mark is not in dispute. 83. Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 have already suffered a permanent injunction. This Court has also injuncted Defendant No. 1. The question is whether Defendant No. 1 would be liable to pay damages for such blatant infringement on the ecommerce platform which can also be termed as e-infringement, as it was the entity which was responsible for the infringing conduct of Defendant No. 2 on Defendant No. 3’s platform. The answer is clearly in the affirmative.” Insofar as the complicity of Amazon Tech (Defendant 1) in the alleged infringement of Lifestyle’s trade mark is concerned, it is Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 apparent that, in the afore extracted passages from the impugned judgment, is nothing whatsoever, except a concluding observation that Amazon Tech “was the entity which was responsible for the infringing conduct of Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail) on Defendant No. 3 (ASSPL)’s platform”. Mr. Kaul and Mr. Nigam would contend that there is no basis, whatseoever, for this finding, and we find, on a complete reading of the impugned judgment that there is, in fact, none.

48. Paras 84 to 97 of the impugned judgment then proceed to deal with the computation of damges in the case of trade mark infringement, and various available methodologies in that regard. They make no mention, whatsoever, to the involvement of any of the defendants in the alleged infringement of Lifestyle’s mark.

49. Para 98 then goes on to state that the Court was proceeding to “examine the extent and nature of the infringement, the degree of culpability of the Defendants, and the quantification of damages necessary to adequately compensate the Plaintiffs”. Insofar as any mention of Defendant 1 Amazon Tech, the present appellant, is concerned, it is to be found in paras 98 to 101 of the impugned judgment: “98. Applying the above stated principles to the present case, this Court shall now examine the extent and nature of the infringement, the degree of culpability of the Defendants, and the quantification of damages necessary to adequately compensate the Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Plaintiffs. Some of the important aspects that this Court now considers in the enquiry on damages are as under: i) The mark-Symbol, which is owned by Defendant No. 1, and the fact that it has along with Defendant No. 2 used a logo which is nearly identical to BHPC’s logo of the Plaintiffs. The images of the same are set out below8: ***** ii) The Defendant No. 1 is well-aware of the exclusive rights of the Plaintiffs in the BHPC mark and logo as it has been involved in litigation with the Plaintiffs multiple jurisdictions, including the UK9.

99. Defendant No. 1 is also in the apparel trade by owning the mark ‘SYMBOL’ under which the garments are sold. The infringing horse logo was used on ‘Symbol’ branded apparel. It is a known fact that Defendant No. 1 is one of the most dominant players in the e-commerce space. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 possesses ways and means to utilize its dominant presence in the e-commerce space to promote its own products as also products which it might otherwise wish to promote. Defendant No. 1 also has the leverage through its own platforms to dilute Plaintiff’s brand/logo by indulging in deep-discounting of its own products which compete with the Plaintiff by using a similar mark/logo. In the present facts, the Defendant is placing products priced at 10% of the Plaintiffs’ product cost. Further, it is also evident that Defendant No. 1 is 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. However, it is well known reality that all three Defendants belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity. Defendant No. 1 has selectively chosen when to appear and not appear before the Court. At a time when the Court directed vide order dated 20th April, 2022 to explain the exact relationship between the three Defendants, it 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 8 Omitted as they are not relevant 9 Lifestyle Equities CV and another (Respondents) v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others (Appellants), [2024] UKSC8 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 engage in bona fide conduct as expected of a party before a judicial forum.

100. Defendant No. 1 also chose not to even file its defence before the Court. It is not disputed that it owns the ‘Symbol’ brand which it has permitted Defendant No. 2 to use. Some of the trademark registrations of the mark SYMBOL are set out below10: *****

101. The agreement between Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 reveals that Defendant No. 1 retains control over the trademark usage, licensing, and distribution of the infringing mark, thereby making it directly liable for the unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs’ mark. This agreement is demonstrative of the direct commercial and operational nexus between the Defendants, making it evident that Defendant No. 1 cannot escape liability under the guise of being a mere intermediary.”

50. In our view, these paragraphs suffer from several errors and also include presumptive findings unsupported by any evidence. These may be enumerated as under: (i) There is no basis for the finding, in para 98, that Amazon Tech had, “along with Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail)”, used the allegedly infringing logo. (ii) Para 99 proceeds to note that “Defendant No. 1 (the appellant Amazon Tech) was also in the apparel trade by owning the mark ‘SYMBOL’ under which the garments are sold” and “the infringing horse logo was used on ‘SYMBOL’ branded apparel”. Thus, learned Single Judge 10 Omitted as they are not relevant Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 acknowledges the fact that the mark owned by Amazon Tech was ‘SYMBOL’. The impugned judgment thereafter notes that the infringing logo was used on the apparel bearing the SYMBOL mark. What the learned Single Judge fails to note is that the apparel, which bore the infringing logo, was not manufactured, or sold, by Amazon Tech, but was manufactured and sold by Defendant 2 Cloudtail, as was admitted by Lifestyle itself in its replication to the written statement of Cloudtail (extracted in para 34 supra), as well as by Cloudtail itself before this Court as recorded in the order dated 2 March

2023. (iii) Thereafter, para 99 proceeds on considerations which are entirely irrelevant for ascertaining the involvement or complicity, if any, of the appellant Amazon Tech in the affixation of the infringing logo on the apparel sold by Cloudtail, viz. (a) that it was “a known fact that Defendant No. 1 is one of the most dominant players in the e-commerce space”, (b) that Defendant 1 Amazon Tech possessed “ ways and means to utilize its dominant presence in the e- commerce space to promote its own products as also products which it might otherwise wish to promote”, and Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 (c) that Defendant 1 Amazon Tech “also has the leverage through its own platforms to dilute Plaintiff’s brand/logo by indulging in deep-discounting of its own products which compete with the Plaintiff by using a similar mark/logo”. With respect, these findings do not, in any manner, indicate that Amazon Tech was responsible, in any way or to any extent, for the affixation of the infringing logo on the apparel sold by Cloudtail. The fact that Amazon Tech may be a “dominant player” in the e-commerce market can hardly be a basis to return findings of infringement, against it, without any evidence. (iv) Thereafter, para 99 proceeds to observe that it was a “well known reality that all three Defendants belong to Amazon Group of Companies and operate as a cohesive commercial entity”. The basis of this finding is completely unknown. It was not even the case of Lifetyle, in its plaint, that Cloudtail and Amazon Tech operated as “a cohesive commercial entity”. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has funadmentally erred in returning such a finding, unsupported by evidence and even by pleadings. Interestingly, in order dated 12 October 2020, this Court had already held, in para 12, that “Defendant 1 is a separate Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 entity”, and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge also records this in para 19. (v) Para 100 of the impugned judgment, in fact, correctly records that Amazon Tech owned the SYMBOL brand, “which it has permitted Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail) to use”. Thus, the learned Single Judge acknowledges the fact that the only brand, with which the appellant Amazon Tech was concerned and the use of which it had licensed to Cloudtail, was SYMBOL. (vi) Para 101 proceeds to record, somewhat bemusingly, that the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail revealed that Amazon Tech retained control over the trademark usage, licensing and distribution of the infringing mark, thereby making it directly liable for the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s mark. We have seen the licensing agreement. As it was produced before the learned Single Judge in a sealed cover, we refrain from reproducing its contents. Suffice it, however, to state that it makes no mention, whatsoever, of the infringing mark, and is entirely concerned with the SYMBOL mark of Amazon Tech, the use of which it has licensed to Cloudtail. This finding of the learned Single Judge is, therefore, ex facie contrary to the evidence on record, and the terms of the licence agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

51. Para 102 of the impugned judgment does not concern itself with Amazon Tech, but deals with the general aspect of infringement of Lifestyle’s mark. It reads: “102. Apart from the above factors which exhibits the conduct of Defendant No. 1, there are some further factors which are also required to be considered while computing damages in a case of this nature: i) The infringing conduct is on an e-commerce platform where the consumer tends to order by looking at the image rather than the actual product; ii) The consumer does not feel the product or the quality thereof and goes by the prominence of a logo which is almost identical to the Plaintiffs’ BHPC logo; The differences in the logo are almost non-existent iii) and are not assessable by the naked eyes especially on a computer screen or an electronic device like a phone or tablet; iv) The Plaintiffs’ logo is the prominent feature of the registered trade marks of the Plaintiffs and thus use of an identical or deceptively similar logo or device results in infringement of the Plaintiffs’ mark; v) The products are identical; the class of consumer is identical and the logos are nearly identical. Thus, this is a case of triple identity; vi) The pricing of the Defendants’ products is not merely diminishing the Plaintiff’s brand value but is meant to erode the brand equity of the Plaintiffs completely; vii) PW-5 who was an independent expert has given specific examples as to how online counterfeiting has led to destruction of brands. PW-5 goes to the extent of saying that such infringement can lead a brand to the brink of extinction; Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 viii) Sale of products on huge discounts could completely lead the consumer to start de-testing the brand as it could lead to negative social impact linked with law quality and low price.”

52. On the aspect of entitlement of Lifestyle to damages from Amazon Tech, para 103 of the impugned judgment concludes thus: “103. The factors set out above led this Court to conclude that the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages both as compensation as also on lost sales and royalty. Unlike in most other cases where the Court is expected to make estimates of such amounts, in the present case the Trade Mark License Agreement between the Plaintiffs and major brands which was the licensee for the Indian and neighbouring markets gives sufficient basis to calculate the damages that ought to be awarded.”

53. Paras 104 to 117 of the impugned judgment is devoted to calculation of the damages to be awarded to Lifestyle. We need not dwell on this aspect, as it is entirely based on the material produced by Lifestyle’s witnesses in evidence, and the testimonies of the “independent experts”, and no substantial submissions in that regard were advanced before us. For the sake of completion, however, we deem it appropriate to reproduce part of para 108 of the impugned judgment, thus: “108. The evidence also points out that the sales made by the Defendants under the infringing logo were at extremely low prices, thereby eroding the brand value of the Plaintiffs. Thus, without even going into the complicated analysis as to how to quantify damages, one of the simplest ways in which the damages can be assessed in this case is by quantifying the lost royalties to the Plaintiffs. If the same is taken at the minimum in terms of the license agreement with the bonus royalties as per Clause 4.1(b), the Plaintiffs have lost a substantial amount of royalties. The expert who has given evidence i.e., PW-3 has quantified the same for a Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 period of ten years i.e., 2015 to 2024. He has quantified the same in the following manner: *****” (Underscored in original)

54. Paras 118 and 119 of the impugned judgment deal with costs. Costs have been awarded on the basis of the affidavit of costs filed by Lifestyle with the Court in terms of the order dated 29 May 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.

55. Para 120 permits Lifestyle to deposit additional court fees payable on the amount of awarded damages within four weeks.

56. Paras 121 and 122, which set out the relief granted to Lifestyle, against Amazon Tech, read: “121. The suit is accordingly decreed as under in favour of Plaintiffs and against Defendant No. 1 in the following terms: (i) terms of paragraphs 64(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. A decree of permanent injunction is granted in (ii) A decree of damages to the tune of $38.78 million, as on date equal to Rs. 336,02,87,000.00/- is granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against Defendant No. 1. If the said amount is paid within three months, no interest would be liable to be paid. However, if the same is not paid by the Defendant No. 1, interest @ 5% per annum would be payable, from the date of this judgment until the full realization of the said amount. (iii) A decree of costs to the tune of Rs. 3,23,10,966.60/- along with the Court Fee.

122. The details of the relief granted are summarized below: Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 S. No. Decree Details Amount / Terms ($1= ₹ 86.65) 1 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Compensatory Damages Lost Royalties Increased Advertising & Promotional Expenses Total Compensatory Damages Costs Grand Total (Damages + Costs) 5

33.78 million million USD (₹292,70,37,000.00/-) USD (₹43,32,50,000.00/-) USD (₹336,02,87,000.00/-) ₹3,23,10,966.60/- with the Court Fee. ₹ 339,25,97,966.60/- + Court Fee million

38.78 Rival Submissions before us Submissions of Mr. Arvind Nigam A. No infringement by Amazon Tech

57. Mr. Arvind Nigam, commencing arguments on behalf of the appellant Amazon Tech, submits that, as per the plaint instituted by Lifestyle before the learned Single Judge, it was the SYMBOL mark of Amazon Tech which was used and retailed by Cloudtail through ASSPL. Amazon Tech was the owner of the brand SYMBOL, which was duly registered under the Trade Marks Act, and had licensed the use of the SYMBOL mark to Cloudtail. On the basis of the said licence, Cloudtail was retailing goods, bearing the SYMBOL mark, through ASSPL. If the goods bore any other mark, the responsibility for affixing that mark could not be laid on the shoulders of Amazon Tech. The agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail was expressly restricted to use of the SYMBOL mark. The pleadings in Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 the plaint clearly indicate that the case set up was that, in addition to the SYMBOL mark of Amazon Tech, Cloudtail was using, on the apparel sold by it through ASSPL, the infringing mark, of which Lifestyle claimed to have come to know in May 2020. Cloudtail ceased using the said mark in July 2020. The suit came to be instituted in September 2020.

58. Mr. Nigam submits that Lifestyle has, with no justification whatsoever, included Amazon Tech as a defendant in the suit. In fact, in para 41 of the plaint, it is expressly conceded thus: “… To the best of the Plaintiffs knowledge, Defendant No.1 sells products on the website of Defendant No.3 through Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs are not certain about the exact and actual relation between the Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and, therefore, call upon the Defendants to disclose the relation between them.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, far from levying any specific allegations against Amazon Tech, it was an admitted position that Lifestyle was not even aware of the relationship between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. The entire case against Amazon Tech was, therefore, purely presumptive in nature.

59. Mr. Nigam submits that, in paras 11, 12 and 15 to the written statement of Cloudtail, Lifestyle has asserted that it was Cloudtail who manufactured, sold and distributed the products bearing the allegedly infringing mark, and, by adopting the said mark, Signature Not Verified sought to piggyback on Lifestyle’s reputation and goodwill. Even as RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 per the pleadings of Lifestyle, therefore, the appellant Amazon Tech was neither the owner of the mark, nor was the manufacturer of the apparel sold by Cloudtail over the website of ASSPL on which the said mark was affixed. Nor was there anything to indicate that Amazon Tech had ever authorised Cloudtail to affix the said mark. The license agreement dated 23 December 2015 between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail was only with respect to the SYMBOL mark and had nothing to do with the mark.

60. Mr. Nigam further points out that, in para 10 of order dated 7 August 2023, the learned Single Judge notes that Lifestyle had led its evidence “on the question of damages/rendition of profits”. The evidence of Lifestyle’s witnesses, therefore, did not touch on the liability or responsibility of Amazon Tech for the alleged infringement of Lifestyle’s trade mark. There was, therefore, no basis for the learned Single Judge to hold that Amazon Tech was in any way complicit in the alleged infringement of Lifestyle’s registered trade mark.

61. Thus, in the absence of any amendment in the plaint, the learned Single Judge, submits Mr. Nigam, was in manifest error in holding Amazon Tech in any way responsible for the infringement of Lifestyle’s registered trade mark. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

62. In the absence of any such pleading, Mr. Nigam submits that Lifestyle could not seek to rely on any evidence against Amazon Tech, as evidence cannot travel beyond the pleaded facts.

63. Mr. Nigam submits that a reading of the impugned judgment reveals that it has confused the mark SYMBOL, of which Amazon Tech was the proprietor, and the use of which had been licensed by Amazon Tech to Cloudtail by the License Agreement dated 23 December 2015, with the allegedly infringing mark, with which mark Amazon Tech had no concern. A trademark licensor’s control and oversight, as well as liability, had to be restricted to the licensed mark. It could not extend to every branding decision of the licensee, even with respect to marks with which the licensor had no concern and which had never been licensed by the licensor to the licensee.

64. Dehors the aspect of whether the learned Single Judge was correct in proceeding ex parte against Amazon Tech, therefore, Mr. Nigam submits that, even on merits, the case is one of no evidence whatsoever and of, in fact, creating a case against Amazon Tech which is foreign to the case set up by Lifestyle in its plaint. B. Order dated 2 March 2023

65. Mr. Nigam then draws our attention to the order dated 2 March 2023 passed in the suit and reproduced in para 10.1 (xi) supra. He Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 points out that, in para 4 of the said order, the learned Single Judge has noted that Cloudtail had expressed its agreement to suffer a decree of injunction and damages. Cloudtail suggested that damages could be awarded on the basis of the revenue of ₹ 23,92,420/- earned by it by selling the allegedly infringing products, and learned Counsel for Lifestyle clearly stated that “for award of damages, aforenoted data is sufficient and no further evidence is required”. The impugned judgment, which separately awards damages of over ₹ 336 crores, on the basis of evidence unilaterally produced and, in fact, requisitioned, from Lifestyle, after proceeding ex parte against Amazon Tech was, therefore, clearly unsustainable in law.

66. Mr. Nigam further points out that Cloudtail had, before this Court on 2 March 2023, clearly owned its entire responsibility for the damages payable to Lifestyle, and had submitted, categorically, that “the decision to use the impugned device mark was solely that of Cloudtail and Amazon has no liability in the matter”. In this context Cloudtail had also drawn attention to the License Agreement dated 23 December 2015 between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. Learned Counsel for Lifestyle also admitted, in para 6 of the order dated 2 March 2023, that the allegedly infringing mark was not subject matter of the agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail. These factors, submits Mr. Nigam, have been entirely ignored by the learned Single Judge while holding Amazon Tech liable to indemnify Lifestyle by way of damages for participating in the allegedly infringing activities. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

67. Following this, para 8 of the order dated 2 March 2023 decrees the suit in favour of Lifestyle and against Cloudtail, in terms of the prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) in the plaint, for an amount of ₹ 4,78,484/-. Mr. Nigam submits that there could have been no further decree for damages against Amazon Tech, especially as it is not even the pleaded case, in the plaint of Lifestyle, that Amazon Tech has committed any act of infringement over and above the acts attributed to Cloudtail. C. Re. apparent error in para 9 of impugned judgment

68. Mr. Nigam next draws our attention to para 9 of the order dated 7 August 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, reproduced in extenso supra, in which it is recorded that “Defendant No. 1 is claimed to be the owner of the infringing logo/mark which is known by the name ‘SYMBOL’.” He points out that this is a fundamentally erroneous assumption, as Lifestyle never sought to contend that the infringing logo was known by the name SYMBOL. D. Damages claimed could not have been enhanced without amendment, merely on the basis of evidence led during trial and in written submissions – itself insufficient to sustain enhanced damages – No opportunity to Amazon Tech to meet claim for enhanced damages – Violation of principles of natural justice Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

69. Drawing attention next to para 111 of the impugned judgment, Mr. Nigam submits that the very opening sentence of the said paragraph acknowledges the fact that the claim for damages was first filed by Lifestyle with its written submissions, for compensatory damages of ₹ 1260 crores and exemplary damages of twice the said amount. While doing so, no court fee was filed by Lifestyle on the said amount. He submits that the said damages were claimed against sale of T-shirts of around ₹ 23 lakhs, against which damages of ₹ 4,78,484/- already stand awarded against Cloudtail on 2 March 2023, and accepted by Lifestyle in Court.

70. Mr. Nigam further submits that Lifestyle could not have enhanced the initially claimed damages to ₹ 3780 crores merely by way of written statements filed after evidence had been led. This constitutes a substantive change to the nature of the claim, which could only be effected by amendment. Reliance is placed, in this context, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramnik Madhvani v Taraben Madhvai11 and of the Division Bench of this Court in Flight Centre Travels Pvt Ltd v Flight Centre Ltd12. In both these decisions, it was settled that, if, consequent to leading of evidence, the plaintiff desired to enhance the claim in the plaint, it was required to amend the plaint and put the defendants on fresh notice regarding the amendment. 11 (2004) 1 SCC 497 12 2013 SCC OnLine Del 331 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

71. In the absence of such amendment, Mr. Nigam submits that no amount of evidence could suffice to assert, much less decree, the claim. The Court was bound by pleadings.

72. In fact, submits Mr. Nigam, the various elements on the basis of which damages were sought to be computed, in the evidence led by the various PWs, were all unsupported by any pleadings. By way of example, Mr. Nigam has referred to the plea of “compensatory damages for lost opportunity for royalties from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal based on Business Plan Sales”. He submits that these lost royalties have not even been pleaded in the plaint, and were only sought to be asserted during evidence.

73. Mr. Nigam further submits, on the aspect of reasonable opportunity having been granted to Amazon Tech to meet the case set up by Lifestyle that, even if it were to be assumed that Amazon Tech had knowledge of the suit and its contents, an entirely new basis of liability, with damages enhanced more than two thousand-fold had been sought to be introduced after recording of evidence by way of written submissions.

74. These written submissions were never served on Amazon Tech. Nor was Lifestyle ever called upon to amend its claim to incorporate the said enhanced claim for damages. The acceptance of the claim for enhanced damages, by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment was, therefore, manifestly violative of the principles of audi alteram partem. There was, therefore, independent of the aspect of Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 whether summons in the suit had been properly served on Amazon Tech, manifest violation of the principles of natural justice which, too, went to vitiate the impugned judgment. Re. finding of Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL operating as E. “single commercial entity”

75. The finding of the learned Single Judge, in para 99 of the impugned judgment, that Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL “operate as a single commercial entity”, points out Mr. Nigam, is also outside the pleadings, as no such case has been set up by Lifestyle in its plaint. F. Misguided reliance on Licence Agreement dated 23 December 2015

76. The reliance, in para 101 of the impugned judgment, on the Agreement dated 23 December 2015 between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail, submits Mr. Nigam, is also completely misdirected, as the said Agreement only licensed, to Cloudtail, the right to use the SYMBOL trade mark, and did not authorize Cloudtail to infringe any trade mark, including the mark of Lifestyle.

77. Mr. Nigam then took us to para 52 of the impugned judgment. He submits that the conclusion expressed, in the said paragraph, that, “in the opinion of (the) Court, the clauses in the Agreement clearly diminish Amason’s ability to distance itself from the alleged Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 infringement committed by Cloudtail” is a finding without any reasons whatsoever. The further observation, or finding, “Defendant No. 1 (Amazon Tech) being a licensor and Defendant No. 2 (Cloudtail) being a licensee, any infringement or unlawful use by the licensee would also affix liability upon the licensor” is, again, vitiated by non-application of mind, as the Agreement dated 23 December 2015 between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail was only with respect to the SYMBOL mark, and did not authorise Cloudtail to infringe Lifestyle’s – or anybody else’s – registered trade mark. He submits that the learned Single Judge has analogized the Licence Agreement with an agreement of agency between a principal and agent, which is totally fallacious. No “consequences of infringement”, he submits, could “fall upon” Amazon Tech, unless Amazon Tech was complicit in the alleged infringement of Lifestyle’s registered trade mark, which it was not. G. Quantification of damages cannot be left to speculation – No pleading qua enhanced damages

78. Mr. Nigam further submits that, in law, quantification of damages cannot be left to speculation. The plaint in the suit merely quantified the damages assessed by Lifestyle as ₹ 2 crores or such sum as may be found due and payable. The damages could not have been enhanced to almost ₹ 4000 crores, on the basis of evidence led during the trial. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 H. Re. finding of knowledge, by Amazon Tech, regarding pendency of suit

79. Though the plea of knowledge, by Amazon Tech, of the filing of the suit, was itself unsustainable on facts, Mr. Nigam submits that, even if this were to be treated as correct, the suit quantified the damages claimed by Lifestyle as only ₹ 2 crores. Even if it were to be presumed that Amazon Tech was aware that a suit, claiming damages of approximately ₹ 2 crores, had been filed by Lifestyle against it, that did not absolve Lifestyle of its responsibilities either to establish liability against Amazon Tech or restrict its damages to those to the extent claimed in the plaint. I. Payment of Court Fees

80. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Zubair Ul Abidin v Sameena Abidin13, Mr. Nigam submits that the payment of ad valorem court fees could not be deferred till damages were decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The moment enhanced damages were asserted, the decision of the Division Bench holds that payment of ad valorem court fees on the enhanced claim for damages was mandatory. This could not be deferred till the conclusion of the suit and the passing of the decree thereon. J. Amazon Tech never served summons in the suit 13 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3575 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

81. Mr. Nigam next addresses the issue of whether, in fact, Amazon Tech had been served summons in the suit. He submits that, in fact, there had been no service, on Amazon Tech, of summons in the suit, at any point of time. The only service that was effected was in October 2020, of notice in compliance with the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 314 of the CPC.

82. No summons in the suit were, Mr Nigam reiterates, ever served on Amazon Tech. There was no document indicating that, after the requisite process fees had been tendered by Lifestyle, for service of summons on Amazon Tech, the said summons were forwarded to Amazon Tech by any mode including email. Process fees were filed only in March 2021. The suit paper book was, on the other hand, purportedly couriered by Lifestyle to Amazon Tech in October 2020. Quite obviously, summons could not have been served on Amazon Tech even before process fees were filed.

83. In fact, the order dated 1 March 2021, passed by the learned Joint Registrar, recorded that as no process fees had been filed, service of summons on Amazon Tech could not be effected. The email dated 8 14 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party. – The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant— (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with— (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately (b) following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 March 2021, purportedly sent by Amazon Tech in compliance of the order dated 1 March 2021 does not indicate that any summons were attached to the documents served by the said email. In any case, no service of summons on Amazon Tech could have taken place even at that stage, as delay in filing process fees was condoned only on 16 March 2021.

84. Lifestyle was seeking to rely, in this context, on the second proviso to Order IX Rule 1315 of the CPC. The provision had no application. It dealt with knowledge being relevant to refuse setting aside of an ex parte decree where there was irregularity in service of summons. In the present case, as no summons in the suit had been served on Amazon Tech at all, at any point of time, the second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 would not apply.

85. That apart, as Amazon Tech was located in the US, service on Amazon Tech had to be in compliance with the Hague Convention. This was never done. 15 13. Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant. – In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also: Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim. Explanation. – Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

86. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Nigam submits that a case for complete dispensation with the requirement of any deposit being made by Amazon Tech, for the hearing of its appeal, is made out. For the proposition that this Court has power to grant absolute and unconditional stay in an appropriate case under order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, Mr. Nigam relies on Malwa Strips as well as the judgment of this Court in Aurum Ventures Pvt Ltd v HT Media Ltd16 and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Kishor Shah v Urban Infrastrucutre Trustees Ltd17. Submissions of Mr. Pachnanda and Mr. Sai Deepak for the respondents A. Sufficient assertions in the plaint re. complicity of Amazon Tech

87. Responding to the submissions advanced by Mr. Nigam, Mr. Pachnanda, leading arguments for the respondents, submits, at the outset, that paras 41 to 45 and 47 to 53 of the plaint contain sufficient assertions and averments against Amazon Tech and provide reasonable foundation for basing a claim for damages against it. It could not, therefore, be alleged that the claim for damages against Amazon Tech was beyond the pleadings in the plaint. B. Stand of Cloudtail in its written statement 16 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4061 17 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 4098 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

88. Mr. Pachnanda further draws attention to paras 17, 31 and 32 of the written statement filed by Cloudtail, which read thus: It is pertinent to highlight that Defendant No. 2 is merely a “17. retailer of goods on Defendant No. 3’s online marketplace. The listing relied by the Plaintiff, if attributable to the Defendant No. 2, was an isolated incident and an inadvertent act, devoid of any mala fide intention on Defendant No. 2’s part to infringe the Plaintiffs’ trademark. *****

31. That the contents of paras 41 to 43 are matters of record to the extent of it being true. The Plaintiffs are however put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are separate legal entities and Defendant No. 2 has no role to play in the operation of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3. It is further clarified that Defendant No. 2 is merely a retailer on Defendant No. 3’s online marketplace. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their averments. The contents of paras 44 and 45 of the Plaint are denied as 32. misleading. It is vehemently denied that Defendant No. 2 has adopted the Impugned Marked in any manner whatsoever. The Plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their allegations.” (Emphasis supplied)

89. Thus, in the aforesaid paragraphs, Cloudtail had clearly distanced itself from the aspect of infringement or use of the infringing mark. It had clearly asserted that it was merely a retailer of goods on ASSPL’s website. It was also asserted, by Cloudtail, that Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL was separately legal entities and that Cloudtail had no concern with the operation of Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 Amazon Tech or of ASSPL. Cloudtail vehemently denied adopting the allegedly infringing mark. C. Affidavit dated 20 July 2022 of ASSPL – Finding re. group companies

90. Mr. Pachnanda next refers to the affidavit dated 20 July 2022, filed by ASSPL in compliance with order dated 20 April 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. In the order dated 20 April 2022, the learned Single Judge required ASSPL to file an affidavit providing details of whether there was any relationship between Amazon Tech and ASSPL or of its subsidiary or holding companies. In compliance with the said direction, ASSPL had filed its affidavit, para 5 of which reads thus: In light of the above, the Defendant No. 3 is filing the “5. present Affidavit in response to the queries put forth by this Hon’ble Court vide the Order 20.04.2022. The responses to the said queries are as follows: A. Relation between Defendant Nos. 1 (Amazon Technologies, Inc.) and 3 (Amazon Seller Services Private Limited): Both Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are subsidiaries of Amazon.com, Inc. B. Relation between Defendant No. 1 Technologies, Inc.) and Amazon.com, Inc.: (Amazon Amazon.com, Inc. holds ~96% shareholding Defendant No. I. The balance shareholding (~4%) is held by Amazon.com Sales, Inc. (which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.). Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 C. Total sales of products bearing the impugned logo mark, ’ platform: ’, on the Defendant No. 3’s online Total sales made of products bearing the impugned logo mark, ‘ ’. The sales data provided below is based on the records of the Defendant No. 3 and has also been verified against the records of sales of products bearing the impugned logo mark, ’ ', maintained by the Defendant No. 2:” S. No.

5. Financial Year Total stock of products sold Sales Figures (in INR) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-July 2020 492 units 1,69,810 5,823 units 21,82,914 103 units 35,523 8 units 3 units 3,024 1,130 Total 6,429 units 23,92,420

91. The assertions in para 5 of the affidavit filed by ASSPL, submits Mr. Pachnanda, clearly indicate that Amazon Tech and ASSPL were group companies. In view thereof, Mr. Pachnanda submits that the following findings, in paras 42 to 47 of the impugned judgment, are clearly merited, and make out sufficient ground to proceed independently against Amazon Tech: Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 IP “42. Traditionally, violation of rights in a trademark would take place in brick-and-mortar stores where the identity of the infringing party is easily determinable. The growth of the internet and the rise of digital commerce have significantly transformed the promotion and sale of branded products, creating both opportunities and challenges for IP owners. As with all technological advancements, the internet has facilitated both legitimate trade and unauthorized exploitation of rights. The emergence of e-commerce intermediaries, who claim to be distinct from traditional retailers on ecommerce platforms, has introduced legal complexities for IP owners in their efforts to enforce their rights and seek redress for trademark infringement. This distinction has complicated IP enforcement, as such entities often claim intermediary status to mitigate infringing goods. Unlike conventional retail models, where accountability for infringement was clearly attributable, e-commerce platforms operate within a multi-tiered ecosystem, often making it difficult to identify and hold liable those responsible for violations. the sale of liability for E-commerce platforms, while making products and services 43. more easily available and accessible have also posed significant challenges for IP owners seeking to protect their brands and marks being infringed through online platforms. The proliferation of e- commerce is now here to stay and is an irreversible reality, giving rise to a new species of infringement which can be termed as ‘e- infringement’. In this species of infringement, unlike traditional forms of trademark violations, there are multiple parties who could be involved in the violation of rights: a) being used on the product. The owner of the infringing brand which is b) infringing product. The retailer or seller who is selling c) The e-commerce platform which is enabling the retailer to sell the product or the aggregator who may be collecting similar products and making them available for sale. d) The party/entity who is warehousing, raising invoices, packaging, delivering and receiving payments for the product. e) infringing goods. The party who supplies the product, i.e. the Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 f) products Finally, the brand being used on the infringing In the present suit the brand ‘Symbol’ is owned by Defendant No.1- Amazon Technologies, Inc. The retailer, Defendant No.2- Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., sells the products on the e-commerce platform www.amazon.in which is operated by Defendant No.3, Amazon Sellers Services Pvt. Ltd.

44. In e-infringement, the biggest challenge would first be in fixing responsibility on each of the parties. There are complex questions which arise including issues relating to intermediary to safe harbour protection, as also liability, entitlement jurisdictional the multi-layered nature of ecommerce has made it increasingly difficult to identify, attribute liability, and effectively enforce IP rights, necessitating clear legal frameworks to address the evolving challenges posed by online trademark infringement. issues. Clearly, The present case would be one such case which could 45. qualify as an e-infringement case. The brand ‘Symbol’ being used by Defendant No. 2- Cloudtail India Private Limited is admittedly owned by Defendant No.1. During the proceedings, ld. Counsel appearing for Defendant No.2 had appeared for Defendant No.1 on 5th September, 2022 and submitted that Defendant No.1 would be willing to suffer a decree of permanent injunction and also pay the reasonable damages. The said order is of significance and is extracted below: “IA 14249/2022 The learned senior counsel the defendant no.2/applicant herein submits that the said defendant, including for and on behalf of the defendant no.1, is willing to suffer a decree of injunction and also for paying reasonable damages to the plaintiff. He prays that the parties be referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement. The leamed counsel for the plaintiffs prays for time to seek instructions. List on 15th September, 2022.”

46. As per the above order, the matter was referred to mediation, however, the same did not fructify into a settlement. It is at that stage that Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 sought to delineate and distinguish their role from that of Defendant No.1 Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 leading to a decree being passed against Defendant No.2 for a sum of Rs.4,78,484/-. This amount constituted 20% of the sales made by Defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 claimed that it is merely an intermediary and undertook that whenever there are future listing/s bearing the infringing device mark, the same shall be removed, as and when directed by the Court.

47. It clearly appears to this Court that, all three companies which are closely related to or interlinked with each other have sought to project that they are independent of each other, clearly with an intent to avoid fastening of liability. The intention of the said Defendants has clearly been to somehow diffuse and dissipate the consequences of infringement.” D. Absence of Amazon Tech deliberate

92. Mr. Pachnanda further relies on the observations and finding, in para 50 of the impugned judgment, to the effect that, as learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of Cloudtail on 5 September 2022 also claimed to be appearing on behalf of Amazon Tech, Amazon Tech was suitably represented. Keeping in mind that the suit already stood decreed against Cloudtail, the learned Single Judge had correctly regarded the complete absence of any defence by Amazon Tech as deliberate and conscious. E. Liability of Amazon Tech for infringement

93. Mr. Pachnanda also commends, for acceptance, the finding of the learned Single Judge, in the same paragraph of the impugned judgment, to the effect that the infringement, by Amazon Tech, of Lifestyle’s registered trademark by “use of a slavishly Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 imitative logo under the brand SYMBOL has also been established”. He has drawn our attention to the images of T-shirts bearing the SYMBOL logo and the allegedly infringing logo, as contained in para 50 of the impugned judgment, and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said images:

94. In the backdrop of these facts, Mr. Pachnanda submits that the findings in paras 79 and 99 of the impugned judgment, to which Mr. Nigam had taken exception, were also perfectly justified.

95. Mr. Pachnanda also places reliance on the following screen shots filed with the plaint: Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56 The brand “SYMBOL”, figuring in the second screen shot, he submits, is the brand of Amazon Tech. Inasmuch as the infringing logo also figured on the same t-shirts, he submits that Amazon Tech could not distance itself from liability in the matter. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

96. In order to link the appellant Amazon Tech to the allegedly infringing logo, Mr. Pachnanda has, by reference to the screen shots provided with the plaint, submitted that the manufacturer of the product bearing the infringing mark was identified as “SYMBOL” with the same ASIN number as was reflected in invoice dated 10 May 2020 whereunder the t-shirt was sold by Cloudtail. He submits that, in the affidavit of admission/denial filed by Cloudtail, it had specifically stated that the screenshots reflecting the products to have been manufactured by “SYMBOL”, bearing the aforesaid ASIN number, did not pertain to it.

97. In this context, Mr. Pachnanda has also placed reliance on paras 60 to 61 and 100 of the affidavit in evidence of PW-1 Eli Haddad, which reads thus: “60. I state that Defendant No. 1, under its brand ‘Symbol’, was manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which bear the Infringing Logo Mark . I state that Defendant No. 2, Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd, in accordance with the information available with the Plaintiff, is conducting its business through Defendant No. 3’s website www.amazon.in. In accordance with the information available with the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 3 is engaged in business of managing and operating the website, www.amazon.in for the purpose of selling and/or offering for sale products of persons/entities with which it executes contracts, including Defendant No. 2, in India and other jurisdictions. Defendant No. 3, Amazon Seller Service Private Ltd, is selling and offering for sale products of Defendant No. 1 under the trademark ‘Symbol’ bearing the Infringing Logo Mark. To the best of my knowledge, Defendant No. 1 else products on the website of Defendant No. 3 through Defendant No. 2. Signature Not Verified RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:01.07.2025 13:29:56

61. After acquiring knowledge of the Infringing product on the website of Defendant No. 3, the Plaintiff purchased some products of Defendant No. 1 from the website of Defendant No. 3. The Plaintiff upon receipt of these products immediately identified these products to be containing the Infringing Mark, which is a blatant imitation of the Plaintiff Logo Mark. The invoice issued by the Defendant No. 3 towards the purchase of these Infringing Products only disclose the name and details of Defendant No. 2. *****

100. The trademark ‘Symbol’ is a private label of Defendant No. 1, which was introduced to compete with brands sold on Defendant No. 3’s website. Defendant No. 1’s products primarily replicates popular designs and trademarks, like that of the BHPC Logo Mark. Being the private label of Defendant No. 1, the products of Defendant No. 1 are perpetually promoted on the website of Defendant No. 3 and as a consequence, the chances of confusing Defendants’ product bearing the Infringing Mark with BHPC Logo Mark are exponentially magnified.” In support of these submissions, Mr. Pachnanda relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khenyei v New India Assurance Co. Ltd18, para 33 of Ramesh Chand v Anil Panjwani19, and paras 7 and 8 of Government of Goa v Maria Julieta D’Souza20 . For the proposition that mesne profits do not require specifically to have been pleaded in quantified terms, Mr. Pachnanda cites judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Arora v M L Arora21. F. Re. allegation of awarding of damages in excess of pleadings

98. Mr. Pachnanda next addresses Mr. Nigam’s submissions that the damages decreed in favour of Lifestyle were not supported by