Lenskart Confesses to Delhi High Court That Titan Trademark Use Was an Unintentional Blunder

The Delhi High Court issued an order in favor of Titan Company Limited.

In an important judgment, Patent & Commercial Law firm Remfry & Sagar represented Titan Company Limited in a victory for trademark infringement against Lenskart Solutions Private Limited before the Delhi High Court. The relief prayed for in this mode of filing this suit, CS(COMM) 589/2025, was for a permanent injunction restraining Lenskart from infringing and passing off Titan’s registered Trademarks.

Download the full Executive Summary of the case

Plaintiff Titan Company Limited is the registered proprietor of various well-known Indian marks, including “TITAN” and “FASTRACK.” Essentially, Titan’s objection stemmed from the fact that Lenskart was using these registered logos as keywords and metatags on its domain, www.lenskart.com, and website source code without consent. In fact, that’s precisely why this sneaky, underhanded tactic enables Lenskart to illegally steal e-commerce traffic from every internet user to Lenskart’s website, duping millions of innocent consumers.

Titan’s counter case was initially filed at a time when Titan had already issued a statutory cease-and-desist notice to Lenskart on 13th February 2025 claiming that the launch constituted an infringement. Throughout the interim, Mr. Nishchal Anand, the counsel of Lenskart, argued earlier that it was a bona fide error to show Titan’s trademarks on Lenskart’s website and within the type of metatags.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

In response, he claimed that Lenskart had acted in bad faith by overreaching and prematurely taking short sessions to remove all mentions of Titan’s registered marks from their website. Secondly, the operative term here is “all future infringements/listings”—Lenskarthad consented to remove all future possible infringements as soon as it got notice of them from Titan. In the process, without fighting the suit, Lenskart exposed its trademark vulnerability and demonstrated that it had no intention of using Titan’s trademark or wishing to fight the trademark infringement suit.

The en banc court reversed the decision and remanded it.

Taking into account that Lenskart had already admitted to its infringement and decided to correct the error, summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiff Titan Company Limited by the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Amit Bansal. Without going nearly as far as the court ended up going, one can envision a more measured version of this decision that would have imposed some greater burden on Lenskart to make sure it aligned its public-facing representations and would have, in doing so, granted the permanent injunction Titan said it deserved.

What surprised me most about this judgment was not only that Titan was exempted from depositing court costs but rather that the issue was resolved on the initial hearing date and before an official summons was even received. Moreover, the court denied the only other pending applications on the subject. Compared to the typical pace of litigation, this quick resolution is yet one more indication that the courts are not yet completely beyond hope, entangled in never-gonna-happen naysayer obstructive foot-dragging, and when litigating opponents can reach a mutually advantageous out-of-court deal, it can often come together in a strikingly rapid timeframe.

In practice, its impact is limited.

Under long-standing US trademark law, even these uses—which is to say the more nefarious uses, especially in the form of metatags—have been held to create an infringing trademark when they’re determined to create unfair competition or confusion among consumers.

Titan_Company_Limited_Vs_Lenskart_Solutions_Private_Limited___AnrDownload