Delhi High Court IP ruling Archives

In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has directed South Korea-based Ace Technologies Corp to deposit ₹290 crore as a security deposit in a major patent infringement dispute with Canadian company Communication Components Antenna Inc (CCA). This marks the largest security deposit ever awarded in an Indian intellectual property (IP) case.The dispute involves an alleged infringement of CCA’s Indian patent related to telecommunications antennas. The court, while recognizing the seriousness of the claims, took the rare step of ordering a substantial interim monetary deposit. This is aimed at safeguarding the interests of the plaintiff, given that the Korean firm has no significant assets in India.The security deposit amount is roughly 25% of the total damages claimed, which stand at ₹1,160 crore. The court made its decision under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), using its inherent powers to ensure that any potential final judgment in the case is enforceable.This move follows earlier orders of injunction and smaller deposits against Ace Technologies. The court also noted a 65% drop in Ace Technologies’ valuation and its limited Indian operations, which raised concerns over the enforceability of any final award.

🛡️ India’s Growing IP Enforcement Strength

Legal experts view the ruling as a significant boost to India’s reputation as a patentee-friendly jurisdiction. The order aligns with recent trends of Indian courts, especially the Delhi and Madras High Courts, offering financial remedies and interim safeguards in IP matters, particularly when foreign entities are involved.This case could become a benchmark for future patent disputes, especially in sectors like telecom, electronics, and pharmaceuticals, where foreign companies often face enforcement challenges.

📈 Implications

Strengthens judicial support for patent holders.Encourages foreign innovation and investment in Indian markets.Signals a shift toward global IP standards in enforcement practices.Provides confidence to patentees in seeking interim financial protections, not just injunctions.The court has granted Ace Technologies a four-week deadline to comply with the order. Failure to deposit the amount may lead to further legal consequences, including potential contempt proceedings or escalation of enforcement actions.

📌 Conclusion

This historic decision not only offers relief to the plaintiff but also sends a strong signal to global innovators: India is committed to upholding patent rights and is ready to enforce them through financial guarantees, even at interim stages of litigation.

Lenskart tells Delhi High Court its use of Titan’s trademarks like Titan, TitanEye+ and Fastrack was an inadvertent mistake. The court records statement and disposes the suit with a consent decree.

In a significant development in a trademark infringement case, leading eyewear retailer Lenskart Solutions Pvt Ltd has admitted before the Delhi High Court that its use of trademarks owned by Titan Company Limited was a mistake and not a deliberate act of infringement. The court, presided over by Justice Amit Bansal, accepted the company’s submission and disposed of the case through a consent decree.

Trademark Dispute: Titan vs Lenskart

The legal dispute arose after Titan Company Ltd—a Tata Group entity that owns popular eyewear and accessory brands like TitanEye+, Titan, and Fastrack—alleged that Lenskart was using its registered trademarks on its website, both in visible content and as hidden meta tags to boost search engine rankings. Titan viewed this as a clear instance of trademark infringement and passing off and filed a legal suit after sending a legal notice to Lenskart on February 13, 2025.

Lenskart’s Response: Inadvertent Error

In its response to the court, Lenskart clarified that the use of Titan’s trademarks was unintentional. The company emphasized that it never aimed to deceive customers or gain unlawful benefit from Titan’s brand value. Lenskart confirmed that all references to Titan, TitanEye+, and Fastrack had been removed from its website and internal search engine optimization (SEO) metadata.

Court Disposes Case with Consent Decree

Recognizing the prompt action taken by Lenskart and the absence of any challenge from Titan’s legal representatives, the Delhi High Court accepted the eyewear brand’s statement and issued a consent decree, formally binding Lenskart to its commitments. The court did not pass any punitive orders but noted that Lenskart must refrain from similar actions in the future.

Implications for the E-Commerce and Retail Sector

This case underlines the importance of trademark due diligence, especially in the realm of digital marketing where metatag usage can inadvertently cross legal boundaries. The resolution also sets a precedent for how companies can responsibly handle IP disputes by acknowledging errors and taking corrective action swiftly.

Disclaimer:
This article is based on publicly available information from credible legal reporting sources, including Bar & Bench. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All trademarks mentioned belong to their respective owners.