When Titan dragged Lenskart to court over something buried deep in its website code, it wasn’t about misleading taglines or comparative advertising. The alleged infringement was buried deep in the code, called metatags, which quietly influence search engine results.
Metatags are hidden keywords embedded in a webpage’s HTML. While they’re invisible to everyday consumers, they help search engines decide which pages show up when someone searches for a particular brand. So, when Titan discovered that Lenskart had embedded its trademarks—Titan, Titan Eye+, and Fastrack—into its own metatags, the company argued that this could unfairly divert consumer traffic. Lenskart said the inclusion was inadvertent and removed the tags, resulting in the case’s closure.
Consumer attention
But for brands fighting for consumer attention, the incident made way for a larger discussion: In a fiercely competitive market, how ethical is the use of rival brand names to gain online visibility? Could such practices damage equity of the aggressor—and even the affected—brand, and what role do regulators like ASCI play in preventing digital misrepresentation?
“In today’s highly transparent digital landscape, even the perception of using black-hat tactics can raise red flags about a brand’s broader marketing ethos,” says Ekta Dewan, head of marketing at Incuspaze. “Consumers may overlook one incident, but repeated lapses risk reputational erosion.” She adds that while missteps in backend tactics may not immediately dent sales, they do introduce friction in the customer journey, thus slowing down purchase decisions and triggering doubt.
Although the Lenskart case ended without a lengthy courtroom battle, it reinforces a growing trend where courts are urging brands to tread carefully in how they compete online. “The use of competitors’ trade names, especially in cases involving Google Adwords, has come up before courts in matters like MakeMyTrip vs Booking.com and the Agarwal Packers & Movers case,” says Advocate Ashwini Kumar. “And in each of these, the courts have consistently acted to protect registered trademarks.”
Code uncode
For digital-first brands, where the battle for attention is often fought in milliseconds on Google search, such tactics blur the line between smart strategy and overreach. “In a highly competitive market, brands operate in a zero-sum attention economy,” Dewan says. “True market leadership stems from building preference, not just presence. Aggressive marketing is understandable, but when it crosses into grey territory, it signals either a lapse in oversight or a willingness to bend ethical lines.”
From a regulatory standpoint, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) does have guidelines that discourage brands from unfairly using another company’s name. “While this case is not directly about advertising content,” Manisha Kapoor, CEO & Secretary General, ASCI, says, “the Fairness-in-Competition guidelines under the ASCI Code state that ads shall not make unjustifiable use of the name or initials of any other firm, nor take unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to a trademark.” In this case, “prima facie it appears that this principle is violated”, she adds.
However, ASCI also confirmed that its remit currently does not extend to backend technologies like SEO and metatag manipulation. “Our code looks at advertising content and representation. With the evolution of digital, the boundaries of what constitutes advertising are also changing…However, as of now SEO and backend technology are not part of ASCI’s remit.”
Legal experts argue that even if such tactics are hidden from consumers, their impact is real. “Such use can qualify as trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,” says Priyanka Khimani, founder of Khimani & Associates. “Courts have held that even a momentary redirection or confusion, known as Initial Interest Confusion, can amount to infringement.”
Experts say it may be time to give these judicial interpretations a more concrete form. “An amendment to existing laws that clearly defines such digital practices wouldn’t be out of place,” says Mayank Arora, partner at The Chambers of Bharat Chugh.