Trademark Protection in the Eyewear Industry: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to Lenskart

Introduction

The Delhi High Court in Lenskart Solutions Limited v. Mr. Chetan Govind Vhand (CS(COMM) 814/2025) dealt with a major case concerning trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation in the eyewear industry. The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Lenscut” and from copying Lenskart’s distinctive trade dress and store design. A Local Commissioner was also appointed to seize infringing goods and inspect the defendant’s accounts. The order highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting established brands from deceptive practices that cause consumer confusion and harm goodwill.

Facts

Lenskart Solutions Limited, incorporated in 2008, is a prominent player in the eyewear market, offering prescription glasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses through online and offline platforms. It owns an extensive portfolio of trademarks, including “Lenskart,” “Lenskart Air,” “Air Flex,” “Air Fusion,” “Airish,” “Air Swaps,” and “Air Hustlr”, many of which are registered in India and abroad. It also holds copyright in its store layout, signage, and artistic designs under Registration No. A-114479/2015. Lenskart’s brand presence is strengthened by partnerships with leading e-commerce platforms and sponsorships such as Shark Tank India.

In August 2025, Lenskart discovered that the defendant, Mr. Chetan Govind Vhand, had opened a store named “Lenscut” at Pimple Saudagar, Pune, located immediately adjacent to an existing Lenskart outlet. The defendant’s store sold identical eyewear products and imitated Lenskart’s trade dress, including signage placement, promotional stickers, LED boards, and staff uniforms. Test purchases resulted in 56 invoices issued under the “Lenscut” name, showing deception extended to after-sales documentation. The defendant had also applied for trademark registration of “Lenscut” (Application No. 6771380, Class 35 for retail and wholesale of eyewear). Additionally, online discussions on Reddit revealed instances of actual consumer confusion between the two stores. Lenskart sought urgent relief, including an injunction, seizure of infringing goods, and appointment of a Local Commissioner.

Procedurally, the Court granted Lenskart exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, exemption from advance service of notice to prevent concealment of infringing material, and an extension of time to file court fees under Section 149 CPC. These measures allowed the matter to proceed swiftly.

Analysis

The Court examined whether the defendant’s use of “Lenscut” amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The similarity between “Lenskart” and “Lenscut” was both phonetic and visual, and both marks were being used for identical goods and services. This raised the likelihood of consumer confusion, which is the test for infringement. The fact that the stores were adjacent increased the possibility of deception.

The plaintiff also sought protection for its store layout and trade dress. The evidence of identical LED boards, signage placement, and promotional stickers were in consideration before the Court and helped strengthen the argument of copying. Trade dress is a component of overall brand image and imitation of it may amount to passing off. Copyright law also offers protection to original artistic works like signage and designs and was registered on Lenskart’s name.

The Court also pointed out that the defendant had sought registration of the impugned mark, but this was not the right to use a deceptively similar mark to a registered existing trademark. The online proof of confusion among consumers weighed heavily in favor of the claim. The Court added that continued use of the impugned mark would perpetrate irreparable harm on the business and goodwill of the plaintiff and supported the relief in the interim.

The appointment of a local commissioner was seen as necessary to ensure compliance with the injunction and to prevent destruction of evidence. The commissioner was directed to inspect the premises, seize infringing goods, and record account books. This step was intended to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

Judgment

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff had made a prima facie case. The test of balance of convenience weighed in its favour, and irreparable harm would be done if the defendant kept on carrying on the impugned activities. The Court restrained the defendant and all parties connected with them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling eyewear items under the mark “Lenscut” or any other mark deceptively similar to Lenskart’s registered marks.

The Court directed a local commissioner to go to the premises of the defendant, confiscate infringing goods and advertisement material, and make an inventory. The confiscated goods were to be handed over to the defendant on superdari after assessment. The commissioner could inspect account books and, if required, request police help in implementing the order. The commissioner’s remuneration was set at ₹2,00,000, to be paid by the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The case shows how courts in India respond to claims of trademark infringement and passing off in fast-growing retail sectors. The Delhi High Court granted urgent protection to Lenskart by issuing an ex-parte injunction and appointing a local commissioner. The court not only protected Lenskart’s trademarks but also recognized the importance of trade dress and store layouts as protectable elements of brand identity. The judgment therefore emphasizes that intellectual property rights extend beyond word marks to include trade dress, store layouts and overall brand presentation.