RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 1 of 127

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 7 May 2025

Pronounced on: 1 July 2025

+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 & CM APPL. 26455/2025

AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr

Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advs. with Mr.

Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra,

Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Devvrat Joshi, Mr.

Angad S Makkar, Ms. Ira Mahajan, Ms.

Pritha Suri, and Mr. Agnish Aditya, Advs.

versus

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Mr. J.

Sai. Deepak and Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Advs.

with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr.

Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Karmanya Dev

Sharma, Mr. Aditya Goel, Mrs. Namrata

Sinha and Mr. Love Virvani, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

% JUDGMENT

01.07.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 2 of 127

CM APPL. 26455/2025

Facilitative Index to the Judgment

S. No. Subject Para Nos

1 Opening para 1

2 A prefatory note 2 – 5

3 Appellant’s submission in a nutshell 6 – 8

4 The lis 9 – 18

5 Rival pleadings in the suit 19 - 33

6 The plaint 20 – 30

7 Replication of Lifestyle to written statement of

Cloudtail

31 – 33

8 Related contentions of learned Senior Counsel

for Amazon Tech

34 – 36

9 Trajectory of the suit before the learned Single

Judge

37 – 38

10 The impugned judgment 39 – 56

11 Rival Submissions before us

12 Submissions of Mr. Arvind Nigam

13 A No infringement by Amazon Tech 57 – 64

14 B Order dated 2 March 2023 65 – 67

15 C Re. apparent error in para 9 of impugned

judgment

68

16 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

69 – 74

17 E Re. finding of Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and

ASSPL operating as “single commercial

entity”

75

18 F Misguided reliance on Licence Agreement

dated 23 December 2015

76 – 77

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 3 of 127

19 G Quantification of damages cannot be left to

speculation – No pleading qua enhanced

damages

78

20 H Re. finding of knowledge, by Amazon

Tech, regarding pendency of suit

79

21 I Payment of Court Fees 80

22 J Amazon Tech never served summons in

suit

81 – 86

23 Submissions of Mr. Pachnanda and Mr. Sai Deepak for the

respondents

24 A Sufficient assertions in the plaint re.

complicity of Amazon Tech

87

25 B Stand of Cloudtail in its written statement 88 – 89

26 C Affidavit dated 20 July 2022 of ASSPL –

Finding re. group companies

90 – 91

27 D Absence of Amazon Tech deliberate 92

28 E Liability of Amazon Tech for infringement 93 – 97

29 F Re. allegation of awarding of damages in

excess of pleadings

98 – 100

30 G Re. service on Amazon Tech 101 – 102

31 H Re. Prayer for unconditional stay 103 – 106

32 Submissions in rejoinder 107 - 118

33 Analysis

34 The law relating to Order XLI Rule 5 of the

CPC

119 – 133

35 Reasons for our decision

36 A No pleadings claiming ₹ 336,02,87,000/- 134 – 138

37 B No finding of any role of Amazon Tech in

the alleged infringement – Existing

“findings” vitiated by patent factual errors

– Misreading of Licence Agreement dated

23 December 2015

139 – 155

38 C No pleading of infringement by Amazon

Tech, worth the name

156 – 164

39 D Damages of ₹ 4,78,484/- already having

been awarded against Cloudtail, no

separate damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-

could have been awarded against Amazon

Tech

165 – 167

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 4 of 127

40 E Unilateral proceedings, conducted in the

absence of the defendants, without proper

justification

168 – 179

41 Conclusion 180 – 184

1. This order disposes of CM Appl 26455/2025, preferred by

Amazon Technologies Inc

1

under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3)

2

of the

CPC

3

, seeking stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 25

February 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CS

(Comm) 443/2020

4

. 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) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the

Court making it is satisfied—

(a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless

the order is made;

(b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and

(c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such

decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.

3

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

4

Lifestyle Equities CV & anr v Amazon Technologies, Inc. & others, also referred to, hereinafter, as “the

suit”

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 5 of 127

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 Ltd

5

,

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 6 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 7 of 127

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 to 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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 8 of 127

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 Ltd

6

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

of the plaintiff and against the appellant, an amount of ₹

336,02,87,000/-.

6

“Cloudtail” hereinafter

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 9 of 127

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 Ltd

7

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 10 of 127

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 trade

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,

the impugned judgment decrees the suit, against the

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 11 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 12 of 127

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 its brand ‘Symbol’ is

manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which

bear the Infringing Logo Mark . It is submitted that

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 13 of 127

42. The Plaintiffs are not certain about the exact constitution of

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

platforms. The only exception to this is the sale of

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 14 of 127

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.

50. Furthermore, the purpose of the Defendant No.1 by

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.

51. The Defendant No.1 has no excuse whatsoever or reason to

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 15 of 127

52. It is also relevant that, at least in the facts of this case,

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.

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, inevitably and undeniably, the

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 its brand ‘Symbol’, (was)

manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling products which

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 16 of 127

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)

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 17 of 127

(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)

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 18 of 127

(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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 19 of 127

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.

57. The Plaintiff estimate that it has and/or is likely to have

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:

*****

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 20 of 127

(e) For a decree of damages as prayed for in prayer (e)

of paragraph 63 below, the relief is collectively valued for

the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at ₹

2,00,05,000/-and court fees of ₹ 2,00,050/- is affixed

thereon;”

30. The prayers in the suit, insofar as they claim to damages, read:

“64. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Plaintiffs most

respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass:

*****

(e) A decree for damages amounting to ₹ 2,00,05,000/-

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 21 of 127

Para-wise reply to ‘Para-Wise Reply’ of Written Statement

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 indulged in activities amounting to

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.

16. The contents of paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Written

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 22 of 127

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

damages to the Plaintiffs, piggybacking on the Plaintiffs’

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 to

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).

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 23 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 24 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 25 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 26 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 27 of 127

(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 in the

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 the infringing device/logo mark –

[hereinafter “Infringing Device Mark”], which

violates Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights in their

registered logo/device marks in several classes being –

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 28 of 127

and ‘ ’ under Trade Marks Act, 1999

and the Copyright Act, 1956.

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.

3. On 12

th

October, 2020, and add interim injunction

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 29 of 127

CLUB” . In the meantime, 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.”

4. Amazon has not appeared despite service and has

been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20

th

April, 2022.

On the same date, injunction order dated 12

th

October, 2020

was confirmed and made absolute till the pendency of the

present suit. Later, on 5

th

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 to mediation which, unfortunately, was

unsuccessful.

5. Mr. Nischal Anand, counsel for Cloudtail, reiterated

his stand as noted on 5

th

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 23

rd

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 30 of 127

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.

10. This brings us to the remaining Defendants.

Amazon Seller is an intermediary, on whose platform,

products bearing Infringing Device Mark were

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 31 of 127

12. List on 04

th

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

Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr.

Sidhant Goel and Mr. Deepankar

Mishra, Advocates.

versus

AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC & ORS.

..Defendants

Through: None.

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 02

nd

March, 2023, Plaintiff

has filed the additional documents and would now like to

lead ex-parte evidence.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 32 of 127

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. List before the Joint Registrar for recording of

evidence on 12

th

July, 2023.

4. List before the Court on 7

th

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. ...Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Sidhant Goel and

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)

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 33 of 127

2. This is an application seeking permission to lead ex-

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,

Advocates for Applicant. (M:

9810044429)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

19.07.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 34 of 127

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs

seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement

of trade mark, copyright, passing off, dilution of goodwill,

unfair competition, etc.

3. Vide order dated 5

th

July, 2023, this Court had

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').

4. The Joint Registrar has placed the matter before this

Court for appointing a remote point co-ordinator and

fixation of his fee.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Goel, Id. Counsel that in

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.

6. Accordingly, it is directed that 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.

7. The fee of the said coordinator is fixed at £500 for

one session.

8. The Plaintiff to coordinate with the High

Commission of India for nomination of the remote point

coordinator.

9. List on 2

nd

August, 2023 for recording of evidence

through video conferencing before the Joint Registrar.

10. List before Court on 7

th

August, 2023.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.”

“Order dated 2 August 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 35 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 36 of 127

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

Ms. Avni Sharma, Advocates (M:

9716746496).

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 37 of 127

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 16

th

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 38 of 127

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, Proprietors, Shareholders,

Affiliates, Licensees, Agents etc. are restrained from

selling, offering for sell, 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’s logo mark “BEVERLY HILLS

POLO CLUB” In the meantime, CS(COMM)

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 20

th

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

details of whether Defendant No.l- Amazon

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 39 of 127

Technologies, Inc. is, in any manner, related to

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.

5. Let Defendant No.2 also place before this

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.

6. Both the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 confirm

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.

9. Defendant No.1 is claimed to be the owner of the

infringing

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 40 of 127

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.

10. In view of this position, the Plaintiff led its evidence

on the question of damages/rendition of accounts of profits.

The evidence of the following witnesses has been filed on

record:

i. Mr. Eli Haddad;

ii. Mr. Sanjay Shetty;

iii. Mr. Gaganpreet Singh Puri;

iv. Mr. Arvind Dhingra;

v. Mr. Gavin Rawlings

11. Today, Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Sr. Counsel has

addressed some submissions.

12. Since Defendant No.1 is already proceeded ex parte

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 31

st

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 41 of 127

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

2. The present application filed by the Plaintiff seeks

the fixing of a specific time for hearing, considering that

some of the witnesses will be traveling from abroad.

3. Accordingly, list this matter on 31st October, 2023

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. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Gaurav

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

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

01.11.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 42 of 127

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.

4. Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Sr. counsel has

addressed submissions on the aspect of damages. The

hearing is inconclusive.

5. PW-1 shall file on affidavit the details of the actual

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 to be present either

physically or virtually on the next date of hearing.

7. This shall be a treated as a part heard matter.

8. List on 19

th

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 43 of 127

CS(COMM) 443/2020

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. .....Plaintiffs

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

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBAM. SINGH

O R D E R

19.12.2023

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Due to lack of time, the Court is unable to hear

further submissions in this matter.

3. The matter shall continue to be treated as a part-

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. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Gaurav

Pachnanda, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit

Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr.

Deepankar Mishra, Ms. Jyotika Jain,

Mr. Vivek P Singh, Mr. Karmanya D

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 44 of 127

Sharma, Ms. Nikita Jaitly & Ms. Avni

Sharma, Advs. (M: 9873021858)

versus

AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .....Defendant

Through: None

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

27.02.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. List for hearing on 25th April, 2024 at 3:30 pm.

3. 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

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Gaurav

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.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

25.04.2024

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 45 of 127

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, ld. Senior Counsel for the

Plaintiffs has continued his submissions.

3. List for further hearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs on

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. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. 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.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 46 of 127

3. List for filing statement of actual costs, along with

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. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Gaurav

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.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 47 of 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(COMM) 443/2020

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. .....Plaintiffs

Through: Mr. Gaurav

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.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

12.07.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The compilations and the submissions which have

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 48 of 127

(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,

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 49 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 50 of 127

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, that 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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 51 of 127

40. In para 22 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge

proceeds to record and observe as under:

“On 5

th

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,

from

(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”,

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 52 of 127

(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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 53 of 127

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 5

th

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 54 of 127

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 2

nd

March, 2023 that

the Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent 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.

81. Insofar as the aspect of damages is concerned, this Court

has given considerable thought to this aspect. With the advent of e-

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 55 of 127

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,

ii) Products which are retailed under brands belonging

to the principal company - Amazon Technologies Inc. or

group companies or associate companies or subsidiaries.

82. In the present case, the Defendants have failed to disclose

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.

83. The use of the impugned logo/mark is not in dispute.

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 56 of 127

apparent that, in the afore extracted passages from the impugned

judgment, there 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 trade

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 57 of 127

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 below

8

:

*****

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 UK

9

.

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 20

th

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 58 of 127

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 below

10

:

*****

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, the learned Single Judge

10

Omitted as they are not relevant

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 59 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 60 of 127

(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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 61 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 62 of 127

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;

iii) The differences in the logo are almost non-existent

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;

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 63 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 64 of 127

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) A decree of permanent injunction is granted in

terms of paragraphs 64(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint.

(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:

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 65 of 127

S. No. Decree Details Amount / Terms ($1= ₹

86.65)

1 Compensatory Damages

1A Lost Royalties USD 33.78 million

(₹292,70,37,000.00/-)

1B Increased Advertising &

Promotional Expenses

USD 5 million

(₹43,32,50,000.00/-)

1C Total Compensatory

Damages

USD 38.78 million

(₹336,02,87,000.00/-)

2 Costs ₹3,23,10,966.60/- along

with the Court Fee.

3 Grand Total (Damages +

Costs)

₹ 339,25,97,966.60/- +

Court Fee

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 66 of 127

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,

sought to piggyback on Lifestyle’s reputation and goodwill. Even as

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 67 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 68 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 69 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 70 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 71 of 127

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 Madhvai

11

and of the Division Bench of this Court in

Flight Centre Travels Pvt Ltd v Flight Centre Ltd

12

. 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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 72 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 73 of 127

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.

E. Re. finding of Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL operating as

“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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 74 of 127

infringement committed by Cloudtail” is a finding without any

reasons whatsoever. The further observation, or finding, that

“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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 75 of 127

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 Abidin

13

, 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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 76 of 127

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

3

14

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

(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately

following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 77 of 127

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 13

15

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 78 of 127

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

Ltd

16

and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Kishor Shah

v Urban Infrastrucutre Trustees Ltd

17

.

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 79 of 127

88. Mr. Pachnanda further draws attention to paras 17, 31 and 32 of

the written statement filed by Cloudtail, which read thus:

“17. It is pertinent to highlight that Defendant No. 2 is merely a

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.

32. The contents of paras 44 and 45 of the Plaint are denied as

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 80 of 127

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:

“5. In light of the above, the Defendant No. 3 is filing the

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 (Amazon

Technologies, Inc.) and Amazon.com, Inc.:

Amazon.com, Inc. holds ~96% shareholding in the

Defendant No. I. The balance shareholding (~4%) is held

by Amazon.com Sales, Inc. (which is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.).

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 81 of 127

C. Total sales of products bearing the impugned logo

mark, ' ', on the Defendant No. 3's online

platform:

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.

Financial Year Total stock of

products sold

Sales

Figures (in

INR)

1. 2015-16 492 units 1,69,810

2. 2016-17 5,823 units 21,82,914

3. 2017-18 103 units 35,523

4. 2018-19 8 units 3,024

5. 2019-July 2020 3 units 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:

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 82 of 127

“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 IP 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 liability for the sale of 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.

43. E-commerce platforms, while making products and services

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) The owner of the infringing brand which is

being used on the product.

b) The retailer or seller who is selling the

infringing product.

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) The party who supplies the product, i.e. the

infringing goods.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 83 of 127

f) Finally, the brand being used on the infringing

products

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

liability, entitlement to safe harbour protection, as also

jurisdictional issues. Clearly, 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.

45. The present case would be one such case which could

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 for 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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 84 of 127

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

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 85 of 127

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:

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 86 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 87 of 127

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.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 88 of 127

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. Ltd

18

,

para 33 of Ramesh Chand v Anil Panjwani

19

, and paras 7 and 8 of

Government of Goa v Maria Julieta D’Souza

20

. 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 Arora

21

.

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

18

(2015) 9 SCC 273

19

(2003) 7 SCC 350

20

(2024) 3 SCC 523

21

2014 SCC OnLine Del 3005

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 89 of 127

pleadings and were far in excess of the damages claimed in the suit

which were approximately ₹ 2 crores. He relies on Order VII Rule 2

22

of the CPC to submit that the plaint was only required to state the

approximate value for which it was instituted. The Court was well

within its jurisdiction in awarding damages in excess of the amount

claimed in the plaint, the only requirement in law being that the

plaintiff would, in such an eventuality, have to pay court fees on the

enhanced damages. The impugned order specifically directs Lifestyle

to do so and, he submits, on instructions, the court fees have, in fact,

been paid by Lifestyle. In this context, Mr. Pachnanda places reliance

on Section 7(i) and 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and the judgment

of the High Court of Patna in Girja Kuer v Shiva Prasad Singh

23

. Mr.

Pachnanda also relies, in this context, on Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC.

99. In conjunction with Order VII Rule 2 of the CPC, Mr.

Pachnanda also cites Rule 20

24

of the Delhi High Court Intellectual

Property Division Rules, 2022

25

, which requires the plaintiff in an IP

22

2. In money suits. – Where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint shall state the precise

amount claimed:

But where the plaintiff sues for mesne profits, or for an amount which will be found due to him on

taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, or for movables in the possession of the defendant,

or for debts of which the value he cannot, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, estimate, the plaint shall

state approximately the amount or value sued for.

23

AIR 1935 Pat 160

24

20. Damages/Account of profits – A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable

estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with

any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall

consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:

(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;

(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;

(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license

fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized;

(iv) The duration of the infringement;

(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;

(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being incurred by the injured

party;

In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31

of these Rules.

25

“IPD Rules”, hereinafter

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 90 of 127

suit to merely provide a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed.

He has drawn our attention to paras 54, 57 and 62 as well as the prayer

clause in para 64 of the plaint to the following extent:

“54. Notwithstanding the level of gain made by the Defendants

from its Infringing Activities, the Plaintiffs will suffer direct and

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.

*****

57. The Plaintiffs estimate that it has and/or is likely to have

suffered damages of over ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two

Crores). In addition to the damages that the Plaintiff. 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.

*****

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:

*****

e) For a decree of damages as prayed for in prayer (e)

of paragraph 63 below, the relief is collectively valued for

the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at ₹

2,00,05,000/– and court fees of ₹ 2,00,050/- is affixed

thereon ;

*****

64. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Plaintiff most

respectfully prays that this Court may be pleased to pass:

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 91 of 127

*****

e) Decree for damages amounting to ₹ 2,00,05,000/- 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;”

Mr. Pachnanda relies, in this context, on the judgment of a learned

Single Judge of this Court in Prakash Roadline Ltd v Prakash Parcel

Service (P) Ltd

26

.

100. To a pointed query from the Court as to the stage at which

Lifestyle enhanced its claim to approximately ₹ 3780 crores, Mr.

Pachnanda acknowledges that there are no pleadings in this regard,

outside paras 54, 57 and 62 (e) and 64 of the plaint, already

reproduced supra. He also acknowledges that these paragraphs were

never amended. He, however, submits that in view of the proviso to

Order VII Rule 2 of the CPC, there was no need for such amendment,

where the claim related to mesne profits or damages. Nor was there

any requirement of the damages of ₹ 3780 crores, as worked out by

Lifestyle in its written submissions to be ever pleaded in a quantified

fashion. He submits that the entitlement of Lifestyle to damages of ₹

3780 crores had been proved by the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 and

that, when the said evidence was seen in the light of averments

contained in paras 54, 57, 62 and 64 of the plaint, there was no

requirement of any separate pleading before finally awarding damages

26

(1992) 48 DLT 390

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 92 of 127

as quantified by the learned Single Judge. Damages of ₹ 293 crores,

he submits, had also been proved by PW-3. In support of these

submissions, Mr. Pachnanda places reliance on

(i) para 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v Pune Municipal Corporation

27

,

(ii) paras 32 and 33 of the judgment of the judgment of a

learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in ONGC v

Oil Country Tubular Ltd

28

and

(iii) paras 96 to 100 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

McDermott International Inc. v Burn Standard Co. Ltd

29

.

G. Re. service on Amazon Tech

101. Apropos the aspect of service of the suit on Amazon Tech, Mr.

Pachnanda drew our attention to affidavit of service dated 23

December 2020, filed by Lifestyle, which deposed that a complete set

of the paper book in the suit, which included the plaint, applications,

documents and the order dated 12 December 2020, had been served on

Amazon Tech by courier and speed post. He submits that Amazon

Tech was not denying receipt of the courier or speed post, in its

appeal. Relying on Section 27

30

of the General Clauses Act, Mr.

Pachnanda submits that Amazon Tech had to be treated as having been

duly served. He further draws attention to the proofs of delivery of the

27

(1995) 3 SCC 33

28

2011 SCC OnLine Bom 426

29

(2006) 11 SCC 181

30

27. Meaning of service by post. – Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the

commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression

“serve” or either of the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different

intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting

by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected

at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 93 of 127

documents, pursuant to which Amazon Tech actually appeared before

the learned Single Judge, which assertions stand denied by Amazon

Tech.

102. Mr. Pachnanda also placed reliance on Order V Rule 25

31

of the

CPC in this context, as well as on para 13 of the present appeal, which

reads thus:

“13. On 1

st

March 2021, the Ld. Joint Registrar noted that while

the Respondents' affidavit of service dated 23

rd

December 2020

reflected that the entire paper book was delivered to the Appellant

through speed post and courier, the report of the registry reflects

that PF was not filed for service of summons on the Appellant.

Accordingly, the Respondents were directed to take appropriate

steps in this regard. The record of the Suit reveals that the PF

eventually came to be filed on 16

th

March 2021. On 7

th

July 2021,

the Ld. Joint Registrar noted that there is no report regarding

service on the Appellant and directed the Respondent to file an

affidavit of service. This affidavit of service dated 25

th

March

2021, as per the records of the Suit, seems to have been filed on

07

th

July 2021. Pertinently, while the said affidavit states that

summons along with Suit papers were served on the Appellant by

email, the copy of the email attached to the affidavit does not

mention any service or attachment of summons at all. Moreover,

even assuming arguendo that service was attempted on a proper e-

mail address, from the records of the Suit, it appears that the

Respondents have not filed any document evidencing that this

email was successfully delivered to the Appellant (such as "read

receipt", an undertaking on affidavit that the email did not bounce

back, etc.). Copies of the orders of the Ld. Joint Registrar dated 1

st

March 2021 and 7

th

July 2021 are filed herewith as Annexures A4

and A5, respectively.”

31

25. Service where defendant resides out of India and has no agent. – Where the defendant resides

out of India and has no agent in India empowered to accept service, the summons shall be addressed to the

defendant at the place where he is residing and sent to him or by post or by such courier service as may be

approved by the High Court, by fax message or by electronic mail service or by any other means as may be

provided by the rules made by the High Court, if there is postal communication between such place and the

place where the Court is situate:

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 94 of 127

Mr. Pachnanda submits that the speed post and courier had been

forwarded to the appellant Amazon Tech at the same address as has

been provided in the memo of parties in the present appeal. It could

not, therefore, be said that there was no proper service of the suit

papers on Amazon Tech. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pachnanda

places reliance on paras 29 to 31 of the judgment of one of us (C. Hari

Shankar J.) in LT Foods Ltd v Saraswati Trading Company

32

and

paras 11 and 12 of the Division Bench of this Court in Sweety Gupta v

Neety Gupta

33

.

H. Re. Prayer for unconditional stay

103. With respect to Mr. Nigam’s prayer for grant of unconditional

stay of operation of the impugned judgment, Mr. Pachnanda submits

that Amazon Tech is located in the US, which is not a reciprocating

country with India and that, therefore, it would be formidably difficult

for Lifestyle to have the impugned decree executed, for which it

would have to file a separate suit. Grant of unconditional stay would,

therefore, effectively render the decree unexecutable.

104. Mr. Pachnanda further submits that, while examining the merits

of the appellant Amazon Tech’s prayer for unconditional stay, the

conduct of Amazon Tech has to be borne in mind. Despite having been

served with the papers in the suit, Amazon Tech did not deem it

necessary to appear and contest the matter. He submits that, even in

32

2023 SCC OnLine Del 503

33

2016 SCC OnLine Del 5668

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 95 of 127

ground (g) of the present appeal, Amazon Tech has, in a studied

fashion, stated that it had no “lawful knowledge of the suit

proceedings”. Amazon Tech does not, therefore, dispute its having

actual knowledge of the suit and its pendency. In fact, Amazon Tech

has as much as acknowledged the existence of actual knowledge of

the suit on its part by its further submissions, in the same paragraph, to

the effect that “even assuming (Amazon Tech) had knowledge of suit

as originally framed and at that stage was not interested in

defending/contesting the suit with a claim of ₹ 2 crores, the same

cannot be used as a ground to divest (Amazon Tech) of its substantive

right to be put to notice of a material enhancement of the nature of

relief claimed, given the distinct consequence of such material

enhancement.”

105. For the legal proposition that money decrees ordinarily not to be

stayed, Mr. Pachnanda placed reliance on

(i) paras 3, 4, and 7 to 9 of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd v Federal Motors (P)

Ltd

34

,

(ii) paras 1 to 8 of Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v

Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co.

35

and

(iii) paras 15 to 21 and 147 of the judgment of one of us (C.

Hari Shankar, J.) in NHAI v Yedeshi Aurangabad Toll Way

Ltd

36

.

34

(2005) 1 SCC 705

35

(2005) 4 SCC 1

36

2025 SCC OnLine Del 323

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 96 of 127

Mr. Pachnanda also relies on the IPD Rules of this Court read with

Section 129

37

of the CPC and Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act,

along with paras 37, 39, 44 and 48 of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Iridium India Telecom Ltd v Motorola Inc

38

.

106. In that view of the matter, Mr. Pachnanda submits that no case

for grant of stay of the impugned judgment is made out.

Submissions in rejoinder

107. Responding to Mr. Pachnanda’s submissions in rejoinder, Mr.

Kaul, learned Senior Counsel reiterates many of the submissions

already advanced at the first instance. He submits that, admittedly, no

liability or involvement of Amazon Tech, in the affixation of the

allegedly infringing mark on the apparel sold by Cloudtail on

the platform of ASSPL was proved. No evidence by way of affidavit

was led with respect to any such liability of Amazon Tech. Amazon

Tech, he submits, was merely a repository of the trade marks of

Amazon Inc, and nothing else. It only allowed others to use the trade

marks. Amazon Tech did not manufacture any apparel, including shirts

or t-shirts. Even in the Licensing Agreement dated 23 December 2015,

Cloudtail was specifically put on guard that it would not violate any

intellectual property or trade mark of any other person, and had

37

129. Power of High Courts to make rules as to their original civil procedure. – Notwithstanding

anything in this Code, any High Court not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner may make such rules

not inconsistent with the Letters Patent or order or other law establishing it to regulate its own procedure in

the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing herein contained shall affect the

validity of any such rules in force at the commencement of this Code.

38

(2005) 2 SCC 145

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 97 of 127

indemnified Amazon Tech in that regard. Before this Court, on 2

March 2023, Cloudtail categorically acknowledged its liability and

stated that the decision to affix the allegedly infringing mark on

the apparel sold by it on ASSPL platform was entirely its own and that

Amazon Tech had nothing to do with the said decision.

108. Mr. Kaul has specifically drawn our attention once again to the

said order. In the same order, he points out that learned Counsel for

Lifestyle had specifically stated that, on the aspect of damages, he was

satisfied with the damages of ₹ 4,78,484/- awarded against Cloudtail

and that no further evidence was required in that regard. Despite

having made this statement, in written submissions filed after

recording of evidence had been concluded, Lifestyle claimed ₹ 3780

crores against Amazon Tech and was finally awarded over ₹ 336

crores by the impugned judgment. This decree, he submits, is based on

the very same pleadings, data and evidence on the basis of which the

initial claim of approximately ₹ 2 crores had been made.

109. Even if it were to be presumed that Amazon Tech had correctly

been proceeded ex parte by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Kaul

submits that, before enhancing the claim as quantified in the plaint,

from ₹ 2 crores to ₹ 3780 crores, Lifestyle was required to amend the

plaint and serve a copy of the amended plaint on all defendants,

including Amazon Tech. Leading of evidence, he submits, was no

substitute, as evidence cannot travel beyond the pleadings.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 98 of 127

110. Even if the defendant was proceeded ex parte, Mr. Kaul submits

that the plaint was required to stand on its own legs. There was, in

fact, no factual basis in the pleadings of Lifestyle for the damages

claimed by it in its written submissions or even for the damages of ₹

336 crores which were finally awarded by the learned Single Judge.

111. Mr. Kaul reiterates that there was no evidence whatsoever to

indicate that Amazon Tech in any way concerned with the affixation

of the allegedly infringing logo on the apparel sold by Cloudtail

over the platform of ASSPL. The onus of proof, in this regard, was

never discharged by Lifestyle.

112. Apropos the final direction of the learned Single Judge to

Lifestyle to pay the court fees on the amount finally decreed in its

favour, Mr. Kaul submits that the said direction is contrary to law. He

relies on paras 5, 22 and 31 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

State of Punjab v Dev Brat Sharma

39

, to contend that court fees are

payable on the amount claimed, not the amount awarded or decreed.

113. Mr. Kaul reiterates that enhancement of original claim of

approximately ₹ 2 crores to ₹ 3780 crores could not be justified

merely on the basis of written submissions and evidence of PWs.

114. Mr. Kaul further submits that, mere reference to “SYMBOL”

has the manufacturer in the listing of the apparel which bore the

39

(2022) 13 SCC 221

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 99 of 127

allegedly infringing mark, on the website of ASSPL, could not

make Amazon Tech responsible. He further submits that the

enhancement of claim from ₹ 2 crores to ₹ 3780 crores could not be

justified on the basis of Order VII Rule 2 or Order VII Rule 7 of the

CPC or Rule 20 of the IPD Rules of this Court.

115. Supplementing the submissions advanced by Mr. Kaul in

rejoinder, Mr. Arvind Nigam submits, by referring to the prayer clause

in the plaint, that the plaint has incorporated separate prayers for

damages and rendition of accounts. A claim for damages, he submits,

is a legal remedy and not equitable remedy like mesne profits.

Damages have, therefore, to be specifically quantified and not left for

future expansion.

116. Without prejudice to this other submissions, Mr. Nigam points

out that, though the evidence of PW-1 quantified the alleged losses of

Lifestyle in US dollars, the judgment had been rendered in Indian

Rupees. The rate of exchange adopted by the learned Single Judge

was not disclosed. Inasmuch as the damages were over an extended

period, during which the rate of exchange was continuously

fluctuating, the impugned judgment could not be sustained even on

that ground.

117. Mr. Nigam has specifically drawn attention to para 101 of the

impugned judgment, already reproduced supra. He submits that the

Licensing Agreement dated 23 December 2015 between Amazon Tech

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 100 of 127

and Cloudtail was a distinct agreement under which Amazon Tech was

having control over the mark ‘SYMBOL’, and not over the infringing

mark, as was patently incorrectly observed by the learned

Single Judge in para 101. This constitutes, he submits, a patent error

and illegality in the impugned judgment, which completely vitiates it.

He further submits, apropos the observation contained in para 101,

that Amazon Tech has never pleaded that it was an intermediary.

118. Mr. Nigam, therefore, reiterates his prayer for grant of complete

stay of operation of the impugned judgment.

Analysis

The law relating to Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC

119. Order XLI Rule 1(3)

40

of the CPC requires the appellant, in an

appeal against a money decree, to deposit the decretal amount, or

furnish security as directed by the appellate Court, within the time

granted thereof. Though the provision uses the word “shall”, the

Supreme Court, in Malwa Strips, held the provision to be directory,

apparently so that it would not conflict with the power to grant stay, as

conferred by Order XLI Rule 5.

40

(3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as

the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect

thereof as the Court may think fit.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 101 of 127

120. Order XLI Rule 5(1) empowers an appellate Court, for

sufficient cause, to stay execution of the decree or order under appeal.

121. However, this power is subjected, by Order XLI Rule 5(3), to

(i) the appellate Court being satisfied that, unless stay is

granted, the appellant would suffer substantial loss,

(ii) the application being made without unreasonable delay,

and

(iii) furnishing of security, by the appellant, for due

performance of the decree or order under appeal, as may

ultimately be binding on the appellant.

122. The normal principle is that an appellate Court should not stay

the execution of a money decree. In fact, the Supreme Court has gone

to the extent of holding that the entire decretal amount should be

ordinarily directed to be deposited, for the appeal to be heard on

merits.

123. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submit, correctly,

that the principle of complete deposit is neither inexorable nor

absolute. In an appropriate, though exceptional case, the Court can

stay the execution of a money decree.

124. To be fair, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, too, do

not dispute this position. They, however, submit that the present case

does not fall within that rare and select category of appeals in which

stay, of any part of the impugned judgment and decree, should be

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 102 of 127

granted. They stress on the fact that the normal rule is of deposit, and

grant of stay, even in part, is the exception.

125. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contend, per contra,

that, if this is not an exceptional case in which absolute stay should be

granted, there can never be one.

126. The scope of Order XLI Rule 5 has been explained by the

Supreme Court on more than one occasion.

127. In Malwa Strips, it was held, with respect to Order XLI Rule

1(3) and Rule 5, and the task of the Court while dealing with these

provisions, thus:

“12. The High Court in this case failed to notice the provisions

of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41. The appellate court,

indisputably, has the discretion to direct deposit of such amount, as

it may think fit, although the decretal amount has not been

deposited in its entirety by the judgment-debtor at the time of filing

of the appeal. But while granting stay of the execution of the

decree, it must take into consideration the facts and circumstances

of the case before it. It is not to act arbitrarily either way. If a stay

is granted, sufficient cause must be shown, which means that the

materials on record were required to be perused and reasons are to

be assigned. Such reasons should be cogent and adequate.

*****

14. Even if the said provision is not mandatory, the purpose for

which such a provision has been inserted should be taken into

consideration. An exceptional case has to be made out for stay of

execution of a money decree. The parliamentary intent should have

been given effect to. The High Court has not said that any

exceptional case has been made out. It did not arrive at the

conclusion that it would cause undue hardship to the respondent if

the ordinary rule to direct payment of the decretal amount or a

part of it and/or directly through the judgment-debtor to secure the

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 103 of 127

payment of the decretal amount is granted. A strong case should be

made out for passing an order of stay of execution of the decree in

its entirety.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co.

41

128. Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau was a case in which the appellant

Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau

42

awarded a contract to the respondent

Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co.

43

for collection of octroi on SNPB’s

behalf. SNPB terminated the contract. BVC challenged the

termination by way of a civil suit. The suit was decreed, and damages

awarded in favour of BVC and against SNPB. SNPB appealed to the

High Court, with an application under Order XLI Rule 5(1) of the

CPC. The High Court granted stay subject to deposit, by SNPB, of an

amount of ₹ 8,78,925/- with interest @ 8% p.a. SNPB appealed to the

Supreme Court.

129. The judgment of the Supreme Court notes only two pleas as

having been raised by SNPB by way of challenge to the decision in

the suit. The first, noted in para 4 of the report, was that SNPB “was

facing financial difficulty on account of abolition of octroi and was

badly in need of money for carrying out its multifarious public utility

services and activities”. The second, noted in para 7, was that “the

decree (had) been passed by the trial court without availability of any

legal evidence amounting to proof in favour of the respondent and

hence the decree (was) ex facie erroneous”. The Supreme Court

41

(2005) 4 SCC 1

42

“SNPB” hereinafter

43

“BVC” hereinafter

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 104 of 127

deemed it appropriate to modify the order of the High Court, thus, in

para 8:

“In the facts and circumstances of the present case and having

taken into consideration the respective submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties in very many details, we are

satisfied to hold that the High Court ought to have permitted

furnishing of security instead of insisting on deposit in cash of the

amount as directed by the High Court. It is not the case of the

respondent that in the event of the appeal being dismissed the

decretal amount may not be recovered from the appellant. On the

other hand, the appellant has made out a prima facie strong case

for the hearing of the appeal on its merits and further a case that

public interest would be better served by the amount being retained

by the appellant during the pendency of the appeal.”

130. At the end of the day, therefore, while the power of the

appellate Court to stay the execution of a money decree in it entirety is

not eroded in any manner, that power is required to be exercised with

great cause and circumspection, especially in view of the parallel

existence, in the statute, of Order XLI Rule 1(3).

131. It is required to be borne in mind, however, that nearly all cases

in which the Court has directed deposit of the decretal amount under

Order XLI Rule 5 are cases in which the defendant has suffered a trial

and an adverse outcome. In the present case, the entire trial took

place in the absence of Amazon Tech, Lifestyle’s evidence was also led

in Amazon Tech’s absence and was never subjected, therefore, to

cross-examination, and no arguments of Amazon Tech were heard.

Undeniably, it is the plaintiff alone who participated in the entire

proceedings, whose evidence was led, and whose arguments were

heard. The proceedings were, therefore, one-sided throughout.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 105 of 127

Indeed, after 2 March 2023, there was no defendant before the learned

Single Judge at all.

132. We are required, therefore, to examine whether the appellant

Amazon Tech has been able to make out so exceptional a case as to

justify its prayer for grant of an absolute stay of operation of the

impugned judgment and decree.

133. Though, given the magnitude of the decree, and the fact that we

are, in the present case, veering from the oft-trodden path and granting

a complete stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree,

insofar as it awards damages against Amazon Tech and in favour of

Lifestyle, we have set out the facts, the trajectory of the proceedings

before the learned Single Judge, and the rival submissions advanced

before us in detail, we are, in the present order, only adjudicating an

application under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC. Our observations in

the present judgment/order are, therefore, purely prima facie, and

intended to convey the justification for our decision to dispense with

the deposit, by Amazon Tech, of any part of the amount decreed by the

learned single Judge against it.

Reasons for our decision

134. For the following reasons, we are of the view that the present

appeal deserves to be heard without requiring the Appellant Amazon

Tech to secure any part of the decretal amount.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 106 of 127

A. No pleadings claiming ₹ 336,02,87,000/-

135. The Learned Single Judge has awarded, to Lifestyle and against

Amazon Tech, humongous damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-without even

the whisper of a pleading, claiming the said amount. The only

damages claimed, in the pleadings of Lifestyle, were of ₹

2,00,05,000/–. For the first time, in the written submissions filed

before the learned Single Judge after conclusion of arguments,

Lifestyle hiked the damages to ₹ 3780 crores. This was entirely

unsupported by pleadings. The learned Single Judge has, in the

impugned judgment, awarded ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, which were also

never claimed in any pleading of Lifestyle.

136. Leave alone the fact that there were no pleadings, claiming ₹

336,02,87,000/-, there were also no pleadings on the basis of which is

claim could be supported or sustained. The learned Single Judge has

herself ventured into an exercise of computing the awardable damages

as ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, without the said exercise being supported by any

pleadings of Lifestyle. The position that has resulted is, therefore, that

(i) the pleadings of Lifestyle only justified damages of ₹

2,00,05,000/–,

(ii) without amending its pleadings, Lifestyle, in its written

submissions before the learned Single Judge, worked out the

damages to which it was allegedly entitled as approximately ₹

3780 crores, and

(iii) the impugned judgment decrees in favour of Lifestyle

and against Amazon Tech, ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, again on the basis

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 107 of 127

of a computation solely devised by the learned Single Judge,

not pleaded by the parties and unsupported by any pleading on

record.

137. Mr. Pachnanda sought to submit that the damages to which the

Plaintiff is entitled need not be specifically computed and claimed in

the pleadings. The submission, in our view, begs the issue. This is not

merely a case where there are no pleadings, supporting the damages of

₹ 3780 crores, claimed by Lifestyle in its written submissions, or the

damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-which ultimately came to be awarded by

the learned Single Judge. Even the basis for the claim of ₹ 3780

crores, all for the amount of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-which was ultimately

awarded, is not to be found anywhere in the pleadings of Lifestyle.

138. The basis for the claim for damages are, at all costs, to be

contained in the pleadings of the Plaintiff. It cannot be reserved for

evidence. It is a legal truism that evidence cannot traverse the

pleadings.

B. No finding of any role of Amazon Tech in the alleged

infringement – Existing “findings” vitiated by patent factual errors –

Misreading of Licence Agreement dated 23 December 2015

139. Having read the impugned judgment of the learned Single

Judge in its entirety, we do not find, therein, any specific finding

against Amazon Tech, identifying its role in the affixation of the

mark on the apparel sold by Cloudtail on ASSPL’s online

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 108 of 127

platform. The findings are, we feel, largely generalized in nature,

concentrating on the phenomenon of e-infringement and reflect a view

that, if Amazon Tech desired, it could infringe, rather than that it did

infringe.

140. The findings against Amazon Tech, to the extent they figure in

the impugned judgment are, moreover, based on various factual

presumptions which, prima facie, are incorrect.

141. This can be easily gleaned by a para-by-para reading of the

impugned judgment.

142. With greatest respect, it appears to us that the impugned

judgement is more concerned with the fact that e-infringement is a

new phenomenon, and that it is very difficult to identify the actual

players in the act. Paras 42 to 44 of the impugned judgment deal with

the menace of e-infringement, and the difficulty in localising liability

in such cases. Para 44, in fact, refers to intermediary liability, which is

of no particular relevance, as Amazon Tech does not claim itself to be

an intermediary. We may note, even at this juncture, that the learned

Single Judge has, in para 99 of the impugned judgment, observed that

Amazon Tech was identifying itself as an intermediary. This is a prima

facie erroneous finding. At no point of time has Amazon Tech claimed

to be an intermediary. In fact, in earlier orders passed in the suit,

particularly in the orders dated 2 March 2023 and 7 August 2023 –

which the latter was passed by the learned Single Judge herself – it

has been correctly noted that Defendant 3 ASSPL was claiming to be

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 109 of 127

an intermediary and was, in fact, one. In the impugned judgment,

therefore, the learned Single Judge has proceeded on an apparently

mistaken assumption that Amazon Tech was also claiming to be an

intermediary.

143. Returning to the findings in the impugned judgment, following

the adverse observations regarding the menace of e-infringement is a

new species of trademark infringement, which poses significant

challenges in localising of liability, the learned Single Judge proceeds,

in para 45, to characterise the present case as a case of e-infringement

– with which there can be no serious cavil. Following this, however,

the learned Single Judge was on to note that the brand ‘Symbol’,

being used by Cloudtail, was owned by Amazon Tech. This is also;

however, is difficult to understand how the ownership, by Amazon

Tech, of the brand ‘Symbol’ is of any relevance. The mark ‘Symbol’

is, quite clearly, not infringing in nature.

144. In fact, even the plaint in the suit does not so assert. The case

that Lifestyle has sought to build up, in the plaint, is that, as the

infringing mark figured on the same apparel, which bore the

‘SYMBOL’ mark of Amazon Tech, Amazon Tech could not escape

liability from the tort of infringement by use of the mark. In

our considered view, the said plea, which has apparently found favour

with the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, has no basis

in law.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 110 of 127

145. The learned Single Judge proceeds to lay considerable stress on

order dated 5 September 2022, passed in the suit, particularly on the

opening sentence of the order, which reads:

“The learned senior counsel for 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.”

The learned Single Judge has treated this sentence, from the order

dated 5 September 2022, as recording some kind of a concession, on

behalf of Amazon Tech, admitting its liability for infringement and

agreeing to pay damages. Significantly, prior to the passing of this

order, Amazon Tech had already been proceeded ex parte on 20 April

2022. Even if it were to be assumed that Amazon Tech had agreed,

through learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of Cloudtail, to

suffer reasonable damages, that statement, if at all, was made at the

stage when the damages claimed by Lifestyle were of ₹ 2,00,05,000/–.

In the face of this claim, it would be preposterous to hold that the

order dated 5 September 2022 amounts to an admission, by Amazon

Tech, to suffer damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-. Before awarding such

damages, therefore, it was incumbent on the learned Single Judge to

render specific findings of infringement, or at least of complicity in

the infringing activities, by Amazon Tech. With greatest respect, we

do not find this to have been done.

146. Para 47 of the impugned judgment observed that Amazon Tech,

Cloudtail and ASSPL were “closely related to or interlinked with each

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 111 of 127

other”. Para 48 records that “it is a matter of public knowledge that the

www.amazon.in platform is closely linked with Defendant No. 1”, i.e.

the present appellant Amazon Tech. To a large extent, it is clear that

the impugned judgement proceeds on the premise that Amazon Tech,

Cloudtail and ASSPL, i.e., all the defendants, were acting in concert

and were one commercial entity.

147. We also find, prima facie, that the learned Single Judge has, in

para 52 of the impugned judgment, completely misread the Licensing

Agreement dated 23 December 2015 as fastening liability on Amazon

Tech for infringement whereas, in fact, it does nothing of the kind.

The learned Single Judge observes that the License Agreement dated

23 December 2015, between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail indicated

“that Amazon retains significant control over Cloudtail’s branding and

distribution activities”. Following this, the learned Single Judge

returns an opinion that “the clauses in the Agreement clearly diminish

Amazon’s liability to distance itself from the alleged infringement

committed by Cloudtail”, that “the contractual restrictions on

unauthorised trademark use, coupled with indemnification obligations,

provide strong legal grounds for (Lifestyle) to argue Amazon’s direct

involvement in trademark infringement”, “the agreement being a

license agreement, Defendant No. 1 being a licensor an Defendant No.

2 being a licensee, any infringement or unlawful use by the licensee

would also affix liability about the licensor”, “while licensing the

word mark SYMBOL” Amazon would be unable to distance itself

from the use of the accompanying horse logo device mark” and that

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 112 of 127

“thus, the consequences of infringement squarely fall upon Defendant

No. 1”.

148. We are, prima facie, unaware of any law which supports these

observations and findings. The Licensing Agreement dated 23

December 2015 was restricted to the ‘SYMBOL’ mark, owned by

Amazon Tech. Amazon Tech had, by the agreement, licensed, to

Cloudtail, the right to use the mark ‘SYMBOL’. The agreement does

nothing beyond this. By no stretch of imagination could be Licensing

Agreement be read as authorising Cloudtail to affix, on the apparel

sold by it, the allegedly infringing mark. In fact, the Licensing

Agreement makes no reference to the said mark at all, obviously

because Amazon Tech had no concern with the said mark. If,

therefore, Cloudtail did affix the mark on the apparel sold by it,

it certainly did not do so by virtue of any authorisation or permission

granted by the Licensing Agreement dated 23 December 2015. In fact,

the Licensing Agreement contained a specific clause proscribing any

infringement, by Cloudtail, of the trademark of any third party, and

indemnified Amazon Tech in that regard.

149. The observations contained in para 52 of the impugned

judgment, extracted by us earlier in paragraph 139, are unsupported by

law. In a Licensing Agreement, whereby and whereunder Amazon

Tech had only licensed, to Cloudtail, the right to use the ‘SYMBOL’

mark, we are unable to understand how Amazon Tech could be

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 113 of 127

fastened with liability for use, by Cloudtail, of the mark, with

which the Licensing Agreement – and, indeed, Amazon Tech itself –

had no concern.

150. Needless to say, a licence by one party to another, to do a

particular act, cannot render the first party liable for every infringing

or illegal act committed by the second, in the absence of any material

to indicate that the commission of the illegal infringing act was also

authorised by the license. The findings in para 52 of the impugned

judgment, in our prima facie view, are contrary to this principle which,

according to us, is practically fossilized in the law. They, therefore,

suffer from patent illegality.

151. In para 98, the learned Single Judge observes that the judgment

would proceed to examine, inter alia, “the degree of culpability of the

Defendants”. Paras 98 to 99 proceed, apparently, to record certain

observations regarding Amazon Tech which, in our view, are not

incriminating in any manner. Before, however, adverting thereto, the

learned Single Judge observes, in para 98 and in the opening part of

para 99 of the impugned judgment, that the mark ‘SYMBOL’, of

which the right to use had been licensed by Amazon Tech to Cloudtail,

was used “along with” the infringing mark, on the apparel sold

by Cloudtail. Even if it was, we are unable to understand how any

liability or responsibility for infringement, on the ground, be fastened

on Amazon Tech. Amazon Tech was not the manufacturer of the

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 114 of 127

apparel on which the infringing mark was used. It had never licensed,

to Cloudtail, the right to use the infringing mark, with which, in fact, it

had no concern. In fact, Cloudtail itself conceded, before this Court on

2 March 2023, that the decision to use the infringing mark on

the apparel sold by was not of Amazon, but of Cloudtail itself.

Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge has entirely overlooked this

concession, regarding which no objection or reservation was ever

expressed by Lifestyle, either before this Court on 2 March 2023 or at

any point thereafter. In view thereof, it is plainly obvious that the

affixation, on the apparel sold by Cloudtail, of the infringing

logo, could not incriminate Amazon Tech in any manner, merely

because the same apparel also happened to carry the ‘SYMBOL’

mark, the use of which had been licensed by Amazon Tech to

Cloudtail.

152. Para 99 of the impugned judgment proceeds to observe that

Amazon Tech was “one of the most dominant players in the e-

commerce space”, that it “possesses ways and means to utilise its

dominant presence in the e-commerce space to promote its own

products as also products which it might otherwise wish to promote”,

and that it had “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”. These findings are, prima facie, entirely in the realm of

presumption and conjecture. They reflect an impression, by the

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 115 of 127

learned Single Judge, that Amazon Tech was in a position to indulge

in infringing activities by means such as deep discounting – with

respect to which there is not even a whisper of an allegation against

Amazon Tech in the entire plaint of Lifestyle – and that, therefore, it

must have done so. On the face of it, we are of the view that these

findings suffer from perversity in law, and cannot, therefore, sustain.

153. Para 99 goes on further to observe that “it is well known reality

that all 3 Defendants belong to the Amazon Group of Companies and

operate as a cohesive commercial entity”. This finding has nothing

forthcoming, available on the record, to support it. There is certainly

no pleading to that effect. The plaint, filed by Lifestyle, does not

allege, even indirectly, that Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL

constituted a “cohesive commercial entity”. A finding that 3

companies, which are independent corporate ventures, constitute a

cohesive commercial entity, cannot be returned without any pleading

to that effect. We are constrained to observe that the learned Single

Judge has, in so holding, made out a case in favour of Lifestyle which

it itself did not plead.

154. There are no other findings, in the impugned judgment, against

Amazon Tech. Of course, the learned Single Judge has adversely

commented on what she perceives as Amazon Tech’s deliberate

absence from the proceedings in the suit. Even if it were to be

presumed, merely for the sake of argument, that Amazon Tech took a

conscious decision not to participate in the suit proceedings, that

cannot justify mulcting it with damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 116 of 127

155. The case, therefore, is one of awarding, against Amazon Tech

and in favour of Lifestyle, of damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/-, without

any sustainable finding of infringement, or of complicity in

infringement, against Amazon Tech.

C. No pleading of infringement against Amazon Tech, worth the

name

156. Mr. Sai Deepak, appearing on behalf of Lifestyle and

supplementing the submissions advanced by Mr. Pachnanda, sought

earnestly to convince us that the requisite factual basis or alleging

involvement of Amazon Tech in the infringement of Lifestyle’s

registered trademark, is forthcoming in the plaint. We are

unable to agree.

157. We have already set out, from para 29 of the present judgment

on words, the relevant averments contained in the plaint. We do not

find, therein, any prima facie sustainable allegation of involvement, by

Amazon Tech, in any infringement of Lifestyle’s registered trademark.

158. Para 41 of the plaint alleges that Amazon Tech is, under its

brand ‘SYMBOL’, “manufacturing, offering for sale and/or selling

products which bear the infringing logo mark . These

allegations are completely defeated by the assertions in the replication

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 117 of 127

filed by Lifestyle, to the written statement of Cloudtail – also

reproduced supra – that it was Cloudtail manufacturing and selling the

apparel bearing the mark, and, thereby, infringing Lifestyle’s

registered trademark.

159. Para 41 goes on to state that ASSPL was selling products of

Amazon Tech on its platform under the trademark ‘SYMBOL’,

bearing the infringing mark. This allegation, again, is

incorrect. The products sold by ASSPL were not of Amazon Tech, but

of Cloudtail. The only connection of Amazon Tech, with the said

products, was the ‘SYMBOL’ mark, which Cloudtail affixed on the

said apparel under license from Amazon Tech. This does not, in any

way, connect Amazon Tech with the infringing mark.

160. In fact, after making such bald and unsubstantiated allegations,

Lifestyle, in the same para 41 of the plaint, acknowledges that it was

not certain about the actual relation between Amazon Tech, Cloudtail

and ASSPL. Obviously, the allegations against Amazon Tech,

regarding its complicity in the affixation of the mark on the

apparel sold by Cloudtail on the ASSPL platform, were merely shots

in the dark, without any knowledge of the actual state of affairs. In

fact, para 46 of the plaint acknowledges the fact that the invoice,

raised by ASSPL, with respect to the apparel purchased by Lifestyle,

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 118 of 127

only contained the name and details of Cloudtail. Despite this, para 48

of the plaint alleges that it was an “admitted case of Defendant No 3

(ASSPL) that orders for the infringing product of the Defendant No 1

(Amazon Tech) are being fulfilled by Defendant No 2 (Cloudtail)”,

without any such “admitted case” being available on record. The

plaint does not disclose where this “admission” is to be found.

161. At this juncture, we may also refer to the affidavits dated 21

July 2022 and 1 September 2022 of ASSPL, on which Mr. Pachnanda

sought to place reliance as supporting the finding of the learned Single

Judge, in the impugned judgment, that Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and

ASSPL constitute a “cohesive commercial entity”. We find no such

inference being forthcoming from the affidavits. In any case, we are

not concerned, here, with the interlink, as commercial entities,

between Amazon Tech, Cloudtail and ASSPL. They are, admittedly,

independent commercial entities, as was, in fact, noted by the learned

Single Judge in the order dated 12 October 2020, reproduced in para

19 of the impugned judgement. What is to be seen is whether there

was any material to indicate involvement of Amazon Tech in the

allegedly infringing activities of Cloudtail. There is, in fact, none.

162. Apart from this, the plaint only refers, repeatedly, to the

infringing mark as belonging to Amazon Tech and has having

been adopted by it. No factual basis for these allegations is

forthcoming.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 119 of 127

163. We have already explained, in para 18 to 26 supra, why it

cannot be said that any substantial allegation of involvement, by

Amazon Tech, in the allegedly infringing activities of Cloudtail, by

affixation of the mark on the apparel sold by it, can be said to

exist.

164. This, therefore, is not merely a case in which damages have

been awarded against Amazon Tech without any finding, by the

learned Single Judge, of involvement, in the alleged infringing

activities, but is, in fact, a case where no such pleadings exist.

D. Damages of ₹ 4,78,484/- already having been awarded against

Cloudtail, no separate damages of ₹ 336,02,87,000/- could have been

awarded against Amazon Tech

165. The order dated 2 March 2023, in our view, is of pivotal

importance, of which the impugned judgment does not take necessary

stock. In the plaint, damages were not separately sought from Amazon

Tech and the other defendants, including Cloudtail. Consolidated

damages of ₹ 2,00,05,000/– were claimed against all the defendants.

Once, therefore, by order dated 2 March 2023, the suit stood decreed

against Cloudtail ₹ 4,78,484/-, no separate decree for damages could

have been passed against Amazon Tech, inasmuch as no independent

act of infringement has been alleged, against Amazon Tech, apart from

the infringement alleged to have been committed by Cloudtail.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 120 of 127

166. That apart, on 2 March 2023, Cloudtail specifically asserted

sole and individual responsibility for damages as well as infringement.

It was specifically argued, by learned Counsel for Cloudtail, before

this Court, that the decision to use the allegedly infringing mark

was of Cloudtail, and of Cloudtail alone, and that Amazon Tech had

no role to play in the said decision. In response, learned Counsel for

Lifestyle acknowledged the fact that the Licensing Agreement dated

23 December 2015 was only dealing with the ‘SYMBOL’ mark, and

did not deal with the allegedly infringing mark at all. In the

absence, therefore, of any evidence to indicate commission of

independent infringing activities by Amazon Tech, apart from the

affixation of the mark on the apparel sold by Cloudtail over the

online platform of ASSPL, there could be no question of any separate

damages being awarded against Amazon Tech.

167. Learned Counsel for Lifestyle, in fact, specifically stated,

before this Court on 2 March 2023, that, “for award of damages,

aforenoted data is sufficient and no further evidence is required”. In

proceeding to award separate damages, against Amazon Tech, of ₹

336,02,87,000/-, without taking note of the order dated 2 March 2023,

and its import and effect, we are of the prima facie view that the

learned Single Judge, in passing the impugned judgment, has erred in

law.

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 121 of 127

E. Unilateral proceedings, conducted in the absence of the

defendants, without proper justification

168. We also find prima facie substance in the contentions of Mr.

Nigam and Mr. Kaul that the manner in which, after excluding all

defendants from the proceedings, the entire trial of the suit, arguments

and rendition of judgment took place solely in the presence of the

plaintiff Lifestyle, may not sustain legal scrutiny.

169. The learned Single Judge has repeatedly observed, in the

impugned judgment, that Amazon Tech was deliberately staying away

from the proceedings despite being aware of their pendency, and has

relied, for the said purpose, on the order dated 5 September 2022

passed in the suit. A reading of the order discloses that the appearance

of Counsels are noted only for Defendant 2 Cloudtail and Defendant 3

ASSPL. The mere fact that learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Cloudtail advanced a submission, on behalf of his client as well as on

behalf of Amazon Tech, that they were willing to suffer reasonable

damages, cannot be seen as proof of Amazon Tech being aware of the

proceedings or deliberately refraining from participating therein. Even

prior to this date, Amazon Tech had been proceeded ex parte on 20

April 2022. As a matter of fact, therefore, Amazon Tech was never

present before the learned Single Judge on any date of hearing.

170. When one peruses the orders passed in the suit, vis-à-vis the

notings of the Registry, it becomes apparent that, in fact, no summons

in the suit were ever served on Amazon Tech. This, to our mind, is a

serious infirmity, which may plague all other proceedings. Amazon

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 122 of 127

Tech was proceeded ex parte, by the learned Single Judge, on 20 April

2022. In the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar on 7 July

2021, which was the immediately preceding effective date, it was

specifically noted that there was no report regarding service of the suit

on Amazon Tech. In the circumstances, Lifestyle was directed to file

an affidavit of service. No affidavit of service was filed by Lifestyle,

between 7 July 2021 and 20 April 2022. The only affidavit of service

which was filed by Lifestyle was of 25 March 2021. That affidavit

enclosed, by it, an email dated 8 March 2021. No email, after 8 March

2021, was sent by Lifestyle to Amazon Tech. There is no question of

the summons having been served by the email dated 8 March 2021, as

the delay in filing process fee was condoned only on 16 April 2021.

After 16 April 2021, the summons have never been sent to Amazon

Tech, by any means of communication including email. It was for this

reason that the order dated 7 July 2021 of the learned Joint Registrar

required Lifestyle to file an affidavit of service. This was never done.

As such, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge was in error in

proceeding ex parte against Amazon Tech by order dated 20 April

2022.

171. In fact, even before us, Mr. Pachnanda, with characteristic

candour and forthrightness, did not seek to contend that formal service

of summons on Amazon Tech, as directed by the Court while issuing

summons on 12 October 2020, ever took place. His submission is,

however, that, prior to issuance of summons by the Court on 12

October 2020, as well as by way of attachment to the email dated 8

March 2021, all the documents relating to the suit, as well as

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 123 of 127

applications filed therewith, were forwarded to Amazon Tech.

Besides, due compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Order

XXXIX Rule 13 of the CPC was also ensured. In these circumstances,

Mr. Pachnanda’s submission is that the learned Single Judge was

correct in holding that Amazon Tech deliberately absented itself from

the proceedings and cannot, now, therefore, seek to raise a grievance

that it was proceeded ex parte.

172. We cannot, in law, accept the submission.

173. The law does not require a defendant to enter appearance in a

suit, unless summons in the suit are served on it. The Commercial

Courts Act, 2015 contains strict provisions in that regard. No amount

of service, on the defendant, of the papers relating to the suit, by the

plaintiff, absent actual summons issued by the suit, can compel a

defendant, in law, to enter appearance. The law does not permit a

defendant to be proceeded ex parte, even before summons in the suit

are served on it. This is plain, and elementary. The learned Single

Judge could not, therefore, have proceeded against Amazon Tech ex

parte on 20 April 2022, even before formal summons in the suit had

been served on it. In doing so, it appears that the learned Single Judge

was not made aware of the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar

on the immediately preceding date, i.e. 7 July 2021, in which it was

specifically noted that there was no report regarding service of the suit

on Amazon Tech. In holding that Amazon Tech had not appeared

despite service and, therefore, proceeding against Amazon Tech ex

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 124 of 127

parte, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge

materially erred in law and on facts.

174. This, by itself, is a lapse serious enough to vitiate all

proceedings in the suit after 20 April 2022, at least insofar as the

appellant Amazon Tech is concerned. It also, therefore, suffices, even

by itself and independent of all other considerations, as enough to

justify entertainment of the present appeal without requiring any

deposit of the decretal amount to be made by Amazon Tech.

175. We also find considerable substance in the submission of

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Amazon Tech that, in any

event, all these developments took place at a time when the damage

claimed by Lifestyle were only to the tune of ₹ 2,00,05,000/-.

Enhancement of these damages are necessarily to be proceeded by an

amendment of the plaint, of which Amazon Tech had to be put on due

notice. This was never done. In fact, the written submissions filed by

Lifestyle, which enhanced the damages, earlier computed at ₹

20,005,000/– to ₹ 3780 crores, were also not served on the Appellant

Amazon Tech. In accepting the enhancement of the claim for

damages, therefore, we agree with learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant Amazon Tech that the learned Single Judge has not acted

strictly in accordance with the law.

176. In some circumstances, we are also of the opinion that lifestyle

cannot seek sanctuary behind Order VII Rule 2 or Order VII rule 7 of

the CPC, or even Rule 120 of the IPD Rules. Order VII Rule 2, in fact,

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 125 of 127

requires a plaint, seeking recovery of money, to state the precise

claimed amount. The proviso to Order VII Rule 2 applies only in cases

of suits for mesne profits, or for an amount which would be found on

rendition of accounts between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or for

movables in the possession of the defendant or debts of which the

value cannot be reasonably estimated at that stage. The present suit

does not fall within any of these categories. The suit does not claim

mesne profits, or value of movables in the possession of the

defendants, or any debt of which the value was not ascertainable.

Moreover, para 86 of the impugned judgment records the submission

of Lifestyle that it was not pressing for its prayer for rendition of

accounts. In that view of the matter, the proviso to Order VII Rule 2 of

the CPC would not apply, and the main provision, which requires the

precise claim to be quantified in the suit, would apply with all force.

The precise amount quantified in the suit was only ₹ 2,00,05,000/–.

There is, therefore, substance in the contention of learned Senior

Counsel for Amazon Tech that, without an amendment of the plaint,

the damages could not have been enhanced, much less to ₹ 3780

crores.

177. Order VII Rule 7, plainly, does not apply, as it exempts a

plaintiff from requiring to claim “general or other relief”, apart from

the specific relief sought in the plaint.

178. In any event, what lies at stake, here, is something far more

empirical. The question that is required to be addressed is whether (i)

a claim for damages, assessed in the plaint at ₹ 2,00,05,000/–, could

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 126 of 127

be inflated to ₹ 3780 crores merely in written submissions filed by the

plaintiff after conclusion of arguments, without amending the plaint

and without even serving a copy of the written submissions on a

defendant against whom the enhanced damages were claimed and (ii)

the Court would, in such circumstances, have awarded damages in

excess of ₹ 336 crores, without any prior opportunity to the concerned

defendant to contest the proposed judgment.

179. We, prima facie, are of the opinion that both these questions are

required to be answered in the negative.

Conclusion

180. The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our

considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a

complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to

deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned

judgment, in order to maintain its appeal.

181. We, therefore, dispose of the present application by staying the

operation of the impugned judgment dated 25 February 2025, passed

by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it awards damages of ₹

336,02,87,000/-, and costs of ₹ 3,23,10,966.60/-.

182. This shall, however, be subject to an undertaking being

furnished by the appellant Amazon Tech to comply with the impugned

judgment, in the event of its failing in the present appeal, to be

RFA(OS)(COMM) 11/2025 Page 127 of 127

furnished with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks

from pronouncement of the present judgment.

183. CM Appl 26455/2025 stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

184. Observations and findings contained in the present judgment,

we clarify, are only intended to be prima facie and for the purposes of

disposing of the present application. They shall not be binding on the

Court while deciding the present appeal.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

JULY 1, 2025

ar/dsn

Click here to check corrigendum, if any