Eye To Eye: Titan Wins The Battle Of Hidden Tags Against Lenskart

In the case of Titan Company Limited vs. Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd^[1]., the Delhi High Court has addressed a significant issue concerning trademark infringement in the digital domain, focusing on the covert use of trademarks as website metatags. The dispute arose out of Lenskart’s use of Titan’s registered trademarks such as “Titan” and “Fastrack”, amongst others, as hidden source code metatags on its website, potentially diverting online traffic through Google’s search engine manipulation. The Court ruled in favor of Titan, binding Lenskart to their commitments to refrain from using Titan’s registered trademarks in the future.

Factual Background of the Legal Dispute:

Titan, a prominent Indian brand under the Tata Group, is the registered proprietor of several trademarks, including "TITAN", "Titan Eye+ (Device)", "Fastrack" and “FASTRACK (Device)”, recognized extensively within India’s eyewear and accessories market. Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an established competitor in the eyewear retail space as well, operates a large online presence and competes directly with Titan in the same segment. The dispute arose when Titan discovered that Lenskart was using its trademarks not only visibly on its website but also invisibly embedded within the site’s source code as metatags. Metatags are keywords added to the HTML code of a website that help search engines identify the content and relevance of a page. Although not visible to the average user, metatags influence how search engines rank and display websites in response to search queries and are often used as a strategy to manipulate online search rankings.

Arguments and Analysis:

Titan alleged that Lenskart’s covert use of its registered trademarks, embedded as hidden metatags was intended to redirect online traffic by misleading consumers and diluting the brand value associated with Titan’s marks. It argued that this practice amounted to both trademark infringement under Section 29 and passing off under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999- emphasising on the detrimental impact on its business on account of such digital misappropriation.

Titan initiated a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and other appropriate remedies against Lenskart. The core legal conflict centered around the issue of "initial interest confusion"- a trademark law principle wherein consumers may be momentarily misled or confused about the source of goods or services based on misleading marketing, even if the confusion is cleared up before the purchase is made. Titan argued that Lenskart’s use of its trademarks as metatags deceptively attracted online users by exploiting Titan’s brand recognition, thereby creating initial consumer confusion and securing an unfair competitive edge through digital misdirection.

Upon being served the legal notice, Lenskart acknowledged the use of Titan’s trademarks on its website and took immediate corrective actions to address the issue. It contended that the use of Titan’s trademarks had been an “inadvertent mistake” and claimed there was no intention to willfully infringe Titan’s pre-existing rights in its marks. Therefore, Lenskart promptly removed all instances of the trademarks "Titan", "Titan Eye+", and "Fastrack" from its website and source code. Additionally, it gave an undertaking to the Court that it would not use these or any deceptively similar trademarks in the future without authorization and expressed willingness to take down any future listings, if notified in the future. This included an assurance that if any such material were ever brought to its attention again, it would be removed within 72 hours.

The Court took note of Titan’s concerns pertaining to trademark misuse as well as Lenskart’s good-faith remedial actions and cooperative approach. Given that the Defendant had acknowledged the issue and complied with all corrective measures to rectify their actions without contest, the Court found no reason to proceed with a prolonged trial or severe penalties. The suit was disposed of through a consent decree in favour of Titan, thereby legally binding Lenskart to its undertaking to refrain from using Titan’s trademarks in the future. Importantly, the Court also exercised its discretion under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and directed that Titan be refunded the court fees paid, since the matter was resolved before formal summons were issued and no protracted litigation ensued.

The case affirmatively expands and reaffirms the legal position that even the invisible use of a registered trademark, such as in metatags or source code, can constitute actionable infringement if it results in consumer confusion or unfair competitive gain. It underscores the Indian judiciary’s increasing sensitivity and readiness to adapt traditional IP doctrines to address modern forms of trademark misuse in digital marketing and search engine optimization (SEO) practices, emphasizing protection against covert competitive tactics in the digital market. Furthermore, the case illustrates judicial pragmatism- prioritizing swift resolution in cases of undisputed facts and good faith demonstration, thereby encouraging out-of-court settlement and prompt resolution by providing incentives such as refund of court fees.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, this case is a pivotal example of how digital marketing practices such as the use of metatags are increasingly falling under the scrutiny of intellectual property law. It reinforces that digital trademark misuse, even when hidden, attracts liability when consumer deception and/or dilution of brand goodwill is involved. At the same time, the case highlights the Courts’ commitment to efficient dispute resolution, rewarding good faith cooperation and emphasizing that misuse of intellectual property, whether visible or invisible- will be legally untenable.

Snehal Khemka

Associate

snehal.khemka@iprattorneys.com

Reference:

^[1] CS(COMM) 589/2025