Lifestyle Equities v Amazon: no injunction, Amazon wins 95% of costs
Lifestyle Equities CVvAmazon UK Services
- Court
- High Court
- Judgment
- 23 March 2021
- Citation
- [2021] EWHC 721 (Ch)
Fixing the problem before trial can be more valuable than fighting it in court.
Lifestyle Equities, owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademarks, had already lost most of its case against Amazon over listings on amazon.com. Amazon then won again, avoiding an injunction and recovering 95% of its costs.
What happened
This was a follow-up hearing after the main trial, in which Lifestyle Equities' trademark infringement claims against Amazon had largely failed. The only infringement Amazon admitted was a small, historic one involving Beverly Hills Polo Club listings on Amazon Global Store before January 2019. Lifestyle Equities asked the court for an injunction to stop it happening again, a costs order reflecting that admission, and permission to appeal. Amazon argued it had already fixed the problem and that an injunction served no purpose.
What did the court decide in Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services?
The court refused to grant an injunction. Amazon had already put restrictions in place since 2019 and had no intention of removing them, so there was no real risk of the infringement happening again. Ordering an injunction over a trivial, already-fixed problem would have been disproportionate. Lifestyle Equities was ordered to pay 95% of Amazon's costs, with interim payments on account set at 90% of budgeted costs and 55% of costs already incurred. Interest was ordered at the base rate up to judgment, then at the judgment debt rate afterwards. The court granted Lifestyle Equities permission to appeal on all grounds.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that once a business has genuinely fixed a problem, courts are reluctant to order an injunction just to make a point. Amazon's voluntary changes in 2019 did more to protect it here than any legal argument.
- If you're accused of infringement, showing you've already stopped the conduct and have no intention of restarting it can be a strong defence against a final injunction.
- Winning most of a case doesn't guarantee you avoid all liability. Amazon still had to pay for the small admitted infringement, even though it escaped wider claims.
- Costs orders in large commercial disputes are often broad brush. Here the court landed on a 95% figure rather than working out costs issue by issue.
Things to be aware of
- This was a costs and remedies ruling, not a full appeal decision. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds, so the underlying findings were not yet final.
- The refusal of an injunction turned on Amazon's specific conduct, having already restricted the behaviour and shown no intention of changing that. A business that hasn't taken those steps might face a different outcome.
- The court had already decided in the main judgment that an inquiry into damages wasn't worth pursuing because the admitted infringement was trivial. Readers shouldn't assume damages are always unavailable after a partial trademark win.
The businesses involved
Lifestyle Equities CV
Owner of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademarks, which brought infringement claims against Amazon over BHPC branded products appearing on amazon.com and visible to UK consumers.
Amazon UK Services Ltd
Registered in England and Wales on 10 July 1996 and still active, based in London. Its registered business activity is other business support services. It holds no trademarks on the UK trademark register and operates as part of the wider Amazon e-commerce group.
- Companies House
- 03223028 Active
- Incorporated
- July 1996
- Registered office
- London
- Business activity
- Other business support service activities n.e.c.
- UK trademarks
- 0
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2021] EWHC 721 (Ch) on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 27 October 2026. Report an error.
