Conflict emerging between Titan and Lenskart suggests that competition among brands is moving from traditional billboard advertising to shaping search algorithms.
In a competitive digital market, the practice of using rival brand names in metatags to gain online visibility has sparked a discussion about ethics and legality. This tactic, while potentially boosting search engine rankings, could potentially qualify as trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Recent court cases, such as the Titan vs Lenskart dispute, have highlighted the violation of the principle of not using another company's trademark unjustifiably. In this case, Titan filed a lawsuit against Lenskart due to the latter embedding Titan's trademarks (Titan, Titan Eye+, and Fastrack) into its own metatags.
Courts have consistently ruled against such practices, recognising that they create "initial interest confusion" where consumers are misled or diverted before reaching the rightful brand's site. Notable cases such as Brookfield Communications vs. West Coast Entertainment (USA) and Google vs. Louis Vuitton (Europe) establish this principle. Indian courts also protect trademarks used invisibly in meta tags under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Sections 29(6) and 29(8)).
Using rival brand names to manipulate search engine results is considered deceptive marketing, violating consumer protection laws by misrepresenting or confusing the consumer about the source or affiliation of goods/services. This practice is not only unethical but also carries legal consequences, including lawsuits, fines, injunctions, and reputational damage. The Delhi High Court’s ruling against Lenskart illustrates this, where the court found Lenskart’s use of Titan’s trademarks in metatags amounted to infringement and consumer deception.
Despite clear legal provisions, enforcement can be inconsistent, especially in India, due to regulatory ambiguity and the evolving digital landscape. Practical compliance recommendations include avoiding the use of competitor brand names or trademarks in meta tags or advertising without express consent, regularly auditing SEO practices to ensure no unauthorized use of competitors’ intellectual property, and promptly removing offending content if infringement is detected.
Legal experts suggest that an amendment to existing laws that clearly defines such digital practices would not be out of place. ASCI's remit does not currently extend to backend technologies like SEO and metatag manipulation, but repeated lapses in using such tactics can lead to reputational erosion. Missteps in backend tactics can slow down purchase decisions and trigger doubt among consumers.
In the skincare market, for instance, the influence of Korean brands is evident, with a boom in the market. However, it is crucial for brands to compete online carefully, as the use of competitor's trade names has been consistently acted upon to protect registered trademarks. Lenskart, in the Titan case, claimed the inclusion was inadvertent and removed the tags, resulting in the case's closure. Courts are urging brands to be careful in how they compete online.
- In the skincare market, where the influence of Korean brands is prominent, it's crucial for brands to exercise care when competing online to avoid infringing on competitors' registered trademarks, as demonstrated in the Titan vs Lenskart dispute.
- The practice of using competitor brand names in meta tags or advertising without express consent can lead to legal consequences, such as lawsuits, fines, and reputational damage, as seen in the Delhi High Court's ruling against Lenskart. Legal experts advocate for clearer legal provisions to address this issue in the evolving digital economy.
