Fair Play Market Practices in Light of the Titan Eye+ and Tata Titan Trademark Debate
Adjudicated by the Honorable Delhi Hight Court on May, 30, 2025, this case was much more than a mere dispute between two corporate giants, but rather a significant clash of competing interests. Titan Company Limited v. Lenskart Solutions Private Limited brought to the forefront the continuing challenges faced by Indian courts in addressing nuances of trademark law, competition law as well as consumer concerns in the digital market. The matter concluded by a settlement decree after Lenskart admitted to using Titan’s marks – namely, Titan, TitanEye+ and, Fastrack, in its metatags without authorization. While the judgement recognized the element of infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it also raised deeper concerns: how well the Indian laws are equipped to give protective coverage to the well-known marks in the digital age, and how evolving digital practices involving complexities can distort market access, creating an uneven playing field that undermines fair competition.
The Question of Metatag Infringement – How?
The grave nature of the acts of Lenskart is evident when contrasted with the reputation of the trademarks of Titan and their extent of misuse. The factors to be identified to determine whether a mark is well-known or not as provided in section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act encompass recognition, level of use, amount of promotion spent, and market penetrations. Titan checks all the boxes. For decades, it has been a familiar name in Indian households, associated with watches, eyewear, and other lifestyle products. Its nationwide retail presence, long-standing advertising, and consistent image of quality ensure that the average consumer intuitively recognizes Titan as a reliable and well-known brand.
Judicial precedents such as Daimler Benz AG v. Hybo Hindustan have emphasized that trademarks with wide recognition deserve stronger protection, even in unrelated markets, because their distinctiveness itself is a valuable commercial asset. Against this backdrop, Lenskart’s use of Titan’s marks in its website coding cannot be dismissed as trivial.
Although metatags are invisible to consumers, they influence how search engines rank websites. By embedding terms like “Titan” and “Fastrack,” Lenskart artificially boosted its search visibility whenever customers looked for Titan’s products. This clearly falls within the statutory definition of “use in the course of trade,” as it was a calculated business strategy to divert consumer attention.
The doctrine of initial interest confusion further explains why such practices amount to infringement. Even if consumers ultimately realized they were on Lenskart’s website, their attention had already been unfairly diverted through Titan’s reputation. The harm lies not only in the risk of mistaken purchases but also in the fraudulent redirection of consumer traffic itself. By noting Lenskart’s admission and ordering removal of the infringing metatags, the Court effectively recognized that such invisible manipulations fall within the protection of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
Comparative Perspectives
International jurisprudence offers valuable frameworks for assessing the outcome in Titan v. Lenskart. In the U.S., the court in Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape held that the use of trademarks in metatags constitutes infringement when it diverts consumers seeking the genuine brand. The central inquiry was whether such use confuses consumers about product origin—an approach that can be directly applied under Indian trademark law.
The European Court of Justice, in cases such as L’Oréal v. eBay, adopted a more structured analysis. It examined whether the trademark use: (i) affects the mark’s origin function, (ii) causes consumer confusion, or (iii) provides an unfair advantage by free-riding on the reputation of the mark. Applying this framework to Titan v. Lenskart highlights analytical gaps. By resolving the dispute through a consent decree, the Court avoided a full examination of whether Lenskart’s conduct amounted to gaining an unfair advantage, which could have offered stronger precedential guidance for future digital trademark disputes.
Indian jurisprudence itself has shown greater depth in earlier cases. In Yahoo! v. Akash Arora, the Delhi High Court adapted traditional confusion tests to the online environment, recognizing the unique characteristics of internet commerce. By contrast, Titan v. Lenskart ended with a summary resolution through consent, reflecting a lower level of judicial analysis and thereby reducing its precedential strength.
Enforcement Inadequacies
Perhaps, Titan v. Lenskart highlights the shortcomings of trademark protection in India, particularly in relation to deterrence and punishment. Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act empowers courts to impose imprisonment, fines, damages, and account of profits. Yet despite Lenskart’s admission of infringement, no penal action was taken.
This reflects what economists call an “optimal deterrence failure.” As Gary Becker’s theory explains, penalties must exceed expected benefits to deter violations. Here, no financial sanction was imposed, allowing Lenskart to escape with only the removal of the infringing metatags.
The deficiency becomes clearer when the benefits are considered. By using Titan’s marks, Lenskart improved its search engine rankings, driving consumer traffic and sales. The infringement was profitable and not punitive considering the fact that no disgorgement of profits or statutory damages were imposed.
Other Indian IP laws provide stronger enforcement. Patent law allows damages, account of profits, and injunctions, while copyright law provides similar remedies. In theory, trademark law under Section 135 offers the same protections, but courts often show reluctance to impose anything beyond token penalties. This judicial hesitation weakens enforcement and undermines the security of trademarks in the online space.
Implications on Market Structure
The non-penalization is not merely a procedural lapse but one that immediately impairs the performance of the market structure. As Landes and Posner observe, trademarks function to minimize consumer search costs and promote competitive conduct based on quality. The use of Titan’s marks in the metatags disrupted this function, as Lenskart redirected consumer search paths. Customers did not reach Titan because they recognized the brand; instead, traffic was artificially diverted to Lenskart. This amounted to what economists term as, “market distortion,” visibility gained by relying on another’s reputation rather than one’s own merits such as innovation, service, or pricing.
The degree of such distortion is amplified in digital markets because of network effects. Search engines rankings depend on algorithmic signals, one of which is metatag content. By incorporating Titan’s mark, Lenskart obtained visibility it had not earned through its own reputation. This practice undermined consumer independence and disrupted fair competition among various products, as it granted an unfair competition against genuine product quality.
The Court’s approach remained one-dimensional, as these broader concerns were not examined. The case was settled in narrowly within the framework of trademark law without considering wider competition concerns. In CCI v. Google LLC, the Competition Commission displayed a more developed understanding of algorithmic practices and the distortions they produce. If competition law had been applied in Lenskart’s case, its actions could have been seen as creating barriers to market access and thus, a penalty based on turnover could have been imposed in addition to an injunction.
The outcome of the ruling sent two concerning signals: first, to infringers, that online trademark abuse carries little consequence; and second, to the market, that deceptive activities can compete with genuine consumer choice. Together, these systematic gaps undermine the efficacy of trademarks protection and erode the integrity of digital competition in India.
Conclusion
The case reflects both development and moderation in Indian trademark jurisprudence as it continues to evolve with the realities of the digital space. Doctrinal progress is evidenced by the Court’s recognition of the use of metatags as actionable infringement, while the consent decree served as an effective means of resolution.
However, the broader picture reveals significant enforcement and deterrence vacuums. The possibility of taking no concrete measures, even in the face of an acknowledged violation, creates the risk of amplifying such practices by competitors and weakens the protection of trademarks as well as principles of fair competition.
For legal progress to be effective, courts must acknowledge the unique challenges of digital markets and adopt a synergistic framework that addresses trademark law, competition law and consumer interests. Titan v. Lenskart serves as an important starting point, but comprehensive protection demands further jurisprudence, statutory refinement and coordinated regulatory efforts.
Author:–Amrita Pradhan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
References
- Titan Co. Ltd. v. Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd., C.S. (COMM) 254/2024, Delhi High Court (May 30, 2025).
- Daimler Benz Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, A.I.R. 1994 Delhi 239.
- Yahoo!, Inc. v. Akash Arora & Anr., 78 (1999) D.L.T. 285.
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
- The Competition Act, 2002, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
- Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004).
- L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG, Case C-324/09, [2011] E.C.R. I-06011.
- Competition Commission of India v. Google LLC, Case No. 07 of 2012, Competition Commission of India (Oct. 20, 2022).
- Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, Manual of Trade Marks Practice and Procedure (2023), https://www.ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOGuidelinesManuals/1_113_1_tmr-manual-2023.pdf.
- Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Competition Commission of India Issues Orders Against Google for Abusing its Dominant Position (Oct. 20, 2022), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1870007.
