This article was written by

Trust is now a commercial issue rather than simply an IT concern. Now, customers hand over the following data:

• Payment details
• Identity data
• Private communications.

Still, they expect quiet competence in return. Basically, a Zero Trust security model supports that expectation. It treats protection as a continuous business responsibility rather than a perimeter defence installed once and forgotten.

Why Need a Zero Trust Model?

To be honest, companies no longer operate inside one tidy network. In fact, the traditional boundary is blurry due to –

1. Cloud platforms
2. Contractors
3. Remote employees
4. Connected devices
5. Third-party applications.

Consequently, familiar claims about being “secure” sound rather thin. So, businesses must explain –

• Who receives access
• Why they receive it
• When that privilege ends.

Security That Earns Confidence Through Small Decisions

At its best, every relevant access request is assessed against –

1. Identity
2. Device condition
3. Location
4. Data sensitivity
5. Current risk.

Therefore, customers receive stronger protection from compromised accounts without facing blanket restrictions. In this case, the controls become selective and proportionate. That is how zero trust works.

This model does not assume that employees or customers are dishonest. Instead, it questions signals that have not been verified.

For instance, a valid password may not settle the issue. This might be especially true when credentials are stolen so routinely. Then, policies decide whether to permit, challenge, restrict, or block the activity.

Now, a company might say that access to customer records is limited by role. They might also say it is reviewed regularly and logged. However, the promise only holds when implementation reaches –

• Legacy software
• Service accounts
• Third-party integrations
• Administrative systems.

If you leave those areas untouched, the shiny security story starts looking ordinary.

Perimeter Security vs Continuous Verification

The practical difference becomes clearer when traditional assumptions are placed beside a modern control model. Neither approach represents one product. Rather, the comparison shows how security decisions move closer to –

• Identities
• Workloads
• Applications
• Actual behaviour.

Security Question	Perimeter-Led Security	Continuous Verification
Who receives trust?	Internal users often receive broad confidence.	Every identity must establish legitimacy.
How is access granted?	Network location carries considerable weight.	Role, context, device health, and risk are combined.
What happens after login?	Sessions may continue with little scrutiny.	Conditions and behaviour remain under review.
How far can attackers move?	Flat networks may expose additional systems.	Segmentation limits lateral movement.
What can customers see?	Protection rests on vague security claims.	Controls support specific, explainable commitments.

Zero Trust becomes customer-facing when these choices affect real experiences. For instance, an unusual payment change may trigger stronger authentication. Meanwhile, a familiar low-risk action continues normally.

On the other hand, a support agent may see only the information required for a case. This reduces exposure without making genuine service painfully slow.

Five Practices That Turn Security Architecture Into Trust

Technical controls do not create confidence automatically. Instead, customers notice the following:

Therefore, businesses need disciplined operating practices rather than a grand transformation announcement. Moreover, they do not need a stack of expensive tools that nobody has properly configured.

1. Collect Less and Classify Early

In general, security begins before authentication. If a company retains customer information it no longer needs, the attack surface expands for no useful reason.

Also, clear classification is necessary. It helps policies distinguish routine material from financial, identity, health, or commercially sensitive records.

2. Apply Least Privilege with Sensible Timing

Of course, permanent administrative access feels convenient. Still, it is difficult to justify. In fact, the following reduce standing risk:

• Just-in-time privileges
• Approval workflows
• Automatic expiry.

Moreover, internal access should reflect a specific task rather than job title, seniority, or old permissions nobody reviewed.

3. Segment Valuable Systems

A compromised laptop should not become a passport to billing platforms or production databases. Microsegmentation restricts movement between workloads and user groups.

Still, teams must test policies carefully. This is because brittle controls might interrupt services. Also, it must quietly encourage unsafe workarounds.

4. Explain Protective Friction

In most cases, additional verification irritates customers when it appears random. Basically, short, plain-language prompts should explain that unusual activity triggered the check.

At the same time, recovery routes must resist social engineering. Otherwise, the reassuring front door will sit beside a surprisingly weak side entrance.

5. Measure Control Quality Rather Than Tool Volume

Boards should examine the following issues:

• Abandoned accounts
• Policy exceptions
• Device compliance
• Privileged-access age
• Detection coverage
• Recovery performance.

In contrast, a long software inventory reveals little about whether the organisation contains an intrusion or protects affected customers.

The Difficult Part Is Governance

At the outset, the following factors provide the machinery:

• Identity platforms
• Endpoint signals
• Policy engines.

Still, governance determines whether that machinery behaves coherently. In fact, security, privacy, legal, product, and customer-service teams require shared rules for acceptable risk. Otherwise, one department tightens controls. Meanwhile, another creates broad exceptions to meet a deadline.

Zero Trust also requires an honest rollout sequence.

1. Businesses should begin with critical data flows and privileged identities.
2. Extend controls according to risk.
3. Technical teams must map application dependencies before enforcing restrictions.

Basically, a rushed cutover might lead to the following issues:

1. Lock out employees
2. Disrupt customer journeys
3. Undermine the confidence the programme was supposed to strengthen.

Moreover, privacy deserves equal attention. For instance, continuous verification may tempt organisations to collect excessive behavioural information.

Actually, signals should remain relevant, protected, and retained for defined periods. Consequently, security monitoring stays defensible instead of sliding into surveillance dressed up as sensible risk management.

Assurance Should Be Visible Instead of Noisy

To be honest, customers rarely want a technical lecture. However, they do want evidence that security decisions are deliberate. In fact, the following aspects demonstrate control:

• Clear account alerts
• Accessible login histories
• Rapid session revocation
• Specific incident notices
• Dependable recovery processes.

Conversely, claims such as “completely secure” weaken trust. This happens because experienced buyers know that no system will promise it.

The strongest message is modest and testable:

1. Access is limited
2. Suspicious behaviour receives attention
3. Sensitive actions demand stronger proof
4. Incident responses are rehearsed.

Behind that message, audit trails must help teams reconstruct decisions. In front of it, customers need useful choices without being burdened by internal security jargon.

Continuous Verification Makes Customer Trust More Credible

In the end, customer trust grows when a business reduces exposure and explains necessary checks. It must also respond cleanly when something goes wrong.

Zero Trust supports that standard when treated as an operating discipline rather than a fashionable technology purchase. The result is not friction everywhere. Rather, it is about better judgement applied repeatedly. This is helpful where customer data and services genuinely need protection.

This article was written by

Redington shares rose nearly 4% during Friday’s session to an intraday high of Rs 322, extending gains after the technology solutions provider reported a 77% year-on-year (YoY) jump in net profit for the June quarter, driven by record revenue and strong growth across key business segments.

The stock had surged nearly 15% during Thursday’s session following the earnings announcement and touched a fresh 52-week high of Rs 338.50.

The company reported a Q1FY27 net profit of Rs 486 crore, compared to Rs 275 crore in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Excluding exceptional items, profit after tax (PAT) grew more than twice as fast as revenue, highlighting strong operating leverage. The company’s PAT margin stood at 1.4% during the quarter.

Revenue from operations rose 34.6% YoY to Rs 34,922 crore, compared with Rs 25,952 crore in the year-ago period, marking the company’s highest-ever quarterly revenue.

Also Read | Ethereum surged significantly in 11 years. What’s next for the second-largest cryptocurrency?

The strong performance was led by the India business, where revenue surged 63% YoY, while PAT climbed 60%. Growth was driven by the execution of large enterprise deals, higher PC realisations amid industry-wide memory supply constraints, continued premiumisation in smartphones, and sustained demand for cloud and cybersecurity solutions.
Meanwhile, revenue from the Middle East and Africa business grew 15% YoY, supported by cloud and cybersecurity offerings despite geopolitical uncertainties during the quarter.

Business Segment Performance

The company reported strong momentum across its technology portfolio during the quarter.
Software Solutions Group grew 52% YoY, supported by increased adoption of cloud, cybersecurity, software-led engagements, AI-enabled solutions and subscription-based models. Endpoint Solutions Group grew 35% YoY, driven by higher PC realisations amid memory supply constraints and steady demand.

Mobility Solutions Group grew 21% YoY, led by premium smartphone demand and expansion of retail-led distribution. Technology Solutions Group grew 50% YoY, supported by large enterprise and data centre deals.

Also Read |Redington shares rally 15% after Q1 profit surges 77%; revenue rises 35% YoY

“We have started FY27 on a strong note, delivering our highest-ever quarterly revenue and profit. This performance reflects the strength of our diversified business model, disciplined execution and broad-based momentum across businesses and geographies. Profit growth significantly outpaced revenue growth, reinforcing our continued focus on profitable and sustainable growth,” said V. S. Hariharan, Managing Director & Group CEO, Redington.

“As technology adoption accelerates across cloud, software, cybersecurity, AI-enabled infrastructure and digital transformation, Redington is well positioned to capture these opportunities through its strong ecosystem of global technology brands, partners and customers. We will remain focused on operational resilience, capital efficiency and long-term value creation for all our stakeholders,” Hariharan further said.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

Shares of Data Patterns India fell nearly 7% to Rs 4,158 apiece on the BSE on Friday after the company reported weak Q1 results. The defence electronics firm’s net profit declined 14% year-on-year to Rs 22 crore in the first quarter, compared with Rs 25.5 crore in the corresponding period last year.

However, revenue from operations grew 17% to Rs 116 crore in the June quarter, from Rs 99.3 crore in the same quarter of the previous year. The company’s operational EBITDA in Q1 FY27 was Rs 31 crore, as against Rs 32 crore in the June quarter of FY26.

As per a regulatory filing on the BSE, the company’s board has approved a proposed acquisition of 100% stake in a Chennai-based ST Advanced Composites Pvt Ltd. (STAC), for a total consideration of Rs 10 crore. The acquisition of the composite manufacturing company will result in an in-house capability for composite parts required in the Company’s radar and other programs, thereby expanding the addressable value proposition in Data Patterns’ product offerings, as per the company’s statement.

According to the company’s CMD, Mr. Srinivasagopalan Rangarajan, the quarter has met the company’s expectations. He said, “We continue to see a healthy pipeline of opportunities and are now receiving larger-value complete system contracts. Our order book currently stands at around Rs 2,654 crore (including the orders negotiated and pending receipt), providing healthy revenue visibility. Our foray into counter-drone business and export initiatives continues to gain traction.”

He added that the company remains confident in achieving its full-year guidance, backed by the Government’s continued focus on indigenous defence manufacturing.

Data Patterns (India) works closely with defence PSUs, which include Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd, as well as government organisations involved in defence and space research such as DRDO and ISRO.

Just 21% of UK SMEs say they use registered trade marks, according to the Intellectual Property Office’s latest survey of SME intellectual property awareness, while 30% report using no form of IP protection at all.

Set against the government’s estimate of around 5.7 million private-sector businesses, that suggests millions of UK firms may be operating without registered trade mark protection for their brands. At the same time, the register is becoming more competitive. The IPO received 173,180 trade mark applications in 2024, up 5.8% on the previous year and the second-highest total in its history, while registrations increased 9.1% to 156,596. For founders, the implication is straightforward: as more businesses secure exclusive rights to their brands, delaying registration increases the risk of conflicts, costly disputes and, in some cases, being forced to rebrand. For businesses considering registration, Trama, a full-service IP law firm, explains the UK registration process and common application pitfalls in its guide to UK trade mark registration.

Why aren’t more UK SMEs registering their brands?

The evidence suggests the problem is misunderstanding rather than indifference. While 79% of UK SMEs claim to be familiar with the term “intellectual property”, only 26% demonstrate a high level of understanding when tested on how common intellectual property rights apply in practice. Awareness is relatively high, but practical knowledge remains much lower. One of the most common misconceptions is that registering a company with Companies House also protects the business name as a trade mark. It does not. Company incorporation and trade mark registration are separate legal processes serving different purposes. Companies House helps prevent identical or very similar company names from being incorporated, but it does not grant exclusive rights to use a brand name in the marketplace. Those rights generally come through trade mark registration.

For founders, the distinction matters. A business can legally incorporate under one name yet still face trade mark disputes or even be required to rebrand if another business holds earlier trade mark rights. This is explained in more detail in this guide which outlines the differences between company names and trade marks, and when separate registration is needed.

Why timely brand registration matters for UK SMEs

Competition for registered trade marks is increasing. Nearly half of all UK trade mark applications now come from overseas applicants. In 2024, UK-based businesses filed 90,480 applications, accounting for 52.2% of all filings. As both domestic and international businesses register more brands, the pool of available names becomes increasingly crowded.

That makes timing critical. In practice, the UK trade mark system rewards businesses that register early. An application can be refused because of an earlier registered mark, even where the applicant has never come across the other business. As the register becomes more crowded, delaying an application increases the likelihood of encountering an existing right and the risk of costly rebranding.

Businesses that have not registered are not necessarily without protection. The common law action of passing off can protect established goodwill, and trade mark applications filed in bad faith may be challenged. However, relying on these rights is typically more complex and expensive, requiring evidence of reputation, trading history and customer recognition. A registered trade mark provides a clearer legal foundation, making it easier to enforce rights, deter infringement and resolve disputes before they escalate.

What trade mark registration actually involves, and what it costs

For many SME owners, the idea of registering a trade mark feels more daunting than it is. In the UK, the process runs through the Intellectual Property Office and follows a fairly predictable path, even if the legal judgement behind it takes some care to get right.

The starting point is a clearance search of the existing register, checking not just for identical marks but for similar ones that cover the same or related goods and services. This step is often skipped by business owners filing on their own, and it is the single most common cause of later disputes. A name can be entirely free to trade under and still infringe on an earlier registered mark in the same sector, particularly where the goods or services overlap even loosely.

Once a name clears the search, the application itself requires selecting the correct trade mark classes. The UK system uses 45 international classes covering different categories of goods and services, and a business must file in every class relevant to what it actually sells or plans to sell. Filing in too few classes leaves gaps in protection; filing in too many adds unnecessary cost. This is one of the areas where legal judgement matters most, since the classes chosen need to reflect not just the current business but a reasonable view of where it is heading.

On cost, the IPO’s own filing fees start at £170 for a single class online, with £50 for each additional class. That is a modest outlay set against the value most SMEs place on their brand, and considerably less than the cost of a forced rebrand after a dispute. Where a business uses a solicitor or trade mark attorney to handle the search, classification and filing, professional fees are added on top, but this is often worthwhile given how much of the process depends on judgement calls rather than mechanical steps.

Timing matters here too. Once filed, an application is examined by the IPO, published for a two-month opposition period during which third parties can object, and then, assuming no objection succeeds, registered. The full process typically takes around four months from filing to registration, though contested applications can take considerably longer. Businesses sometimes assume protection begins only once the certificate is issued, but the filing date itself establishes priority. This means that in a dispute with a business that files later, an earlier filing date generally wins, even if registration is still pending.

For SMEs weighing whether registration is worth the administrative effort, the practical answer is that the process is neither long nor especially expensive relative to the risk it addresses. The bigger cost, in time and money, tends to fall on businesses that wait until a dispute forces the issue, at which point the options are narrower and the legal fees considerably higher.

Register before your brand becomes valuable

The best time to think about trade mark protection is before a business and brand gains traction, not after. Search the trade mark register before committing to a name, identify the goods and services that genuinely reflect your business, and file an application before your brand becomes worth copying. Many common mistakes, such as choosing a descriptive name or selecting the wrong classes, involve legal judgement rather than simply searching a database. For most businesses, registering a trade mark is a relatively small investment compared with the cost of rebranding after a dispute.

A trade mark is often one of a company’s most valuable intellectual property assets, yet many UK SMEs still leave theirs unregistered. The value of intellectual property often grows alongside the business itself, making early protection increasingly important. With a new UK trade mark application filed roughly every three minutes, the opportunity to secure a distinctive name narrows every day. Registering early is no longer just a legal precaution; it is increasingly a commercial advantage.

The mutual said it continued to invest and offer customers good value in a highly competitive market

Margin pressure and investment has prompted a dip in half year net interest income and underlying operating profits at Newcastle Building Society, though bosses are confident in “robust” results.

The country’s seventh largest building society had anticipated the movement set out in results for the six months to the end of June, in which net interest income was £51m – down on £48.3m in the same period as last year. That came despite net mortgage growth of £235m, meaning total mortgage balances of £5.9bn, and growth in savings balances to £6.2bn from £5.9bn.

The mutual cited a “highly competitive retail market” and increased wholesale funding costs which over deposits and drawdowns from Bank of England funding schemes. It meant underlying operating profit fell to £14.9m, compared to £15.9m, which was said to have been partly offset by modest growth in other income. Meanwhile pre-tax profits were up at £15.1m, compared to £10.8m in the same period last year.

Chief executive Andrew Haigh said the mutual had continued to contend with a fast-moving and sometimes uncertain external environment but that it had continued to invest – including in digital services and the group’s latest branch in Guisborough – and offer good value to savers and borrowers. He said the focus had been on building resilience and creating long-term strength.

The group’s outsourced savings management operation – Newcastle Strategic Solutions – contributed £27.9m of client income from savings during the six months, broadly flat compared with the same period last year. That business is undergoing a significant transformation requiring investment to bring new technology and capabilities to clients.

Mr Haigh said: “The first half of 2026 has demonstrated the resilience of our business model and the continued importance of our purpose-led approach. Despite an evolving external environment and continued global and UK political uncertainty, we have remained focused on supporting our members, investing in our communities and strengthening the long-term sustainability of the group.

“We will continue to build on this momentum in the second half of the year, with a clear focus on long term member value, supporting the sustainability of the communities we serve and maintaining the high levels of service and value our members expect. As always, I would like to thank our members for their continued support and our colleagues for their ongoing commitment and dedication.”

This article was written by

The sale of Occombe Farm to Greendale Farm Shop has completed

A former family attraction and farm site on the edge of Paignton has been sold to the owners of an Exeter-based farm shop for an undisclosed sum.

Greendale has acquired Occombe Farm from Torbay Council and is now planning to make “significant investment” to reopen it, it said. The site has been shut since the end of last year when the Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust went into liquidation, with the local authority taking over the maintenance of Occombe and the surrounding land.

Greendale said the acquisition marked “the beginning of an exciting new chapter” for the site.

In the short term, Greendale is planning to reopen some of Occombe’s most popular features, including the farm kitchen, indoor play barn and nature trail.

These facilities will be operated by local leisure specialists, headed up by Thomas Shwenn and his team, who have strong ties to the Bay.

Greendale is also proposing to create new retail and leisure facilities at the site in the longer term. It is understood the redevelopment of Occombe could create some 200 jobs.

Rowan Carter, chief executive of Greendale Group, said: “We look forward to restoring Occombe Farm to its former place at the heart of the Torbay community. Greendale will work closely with local specialists to deliver a site that Torbay can be proud of. We’re also delighted that familiar faces will be returning, with the farm kitchen and play barn staffed by former Occombe employees.

“We are excited to develop this partnership and are confident that Tom Shwenn and his team will deliver the Occombe Farm family experience that so many people remember fondly.”

Mr Shwenn asked the people of Torbay to “bear with us” as he and his team “bring the vision to life”.

He said: “I’m extremely excited to be taking on the operation of Occombe Farm and to have the opportunity to bring this incredible site back to life. We have a long-term vision for Occombe that will see it become one of the South West’s leading family destinations, while staying true to what has always made it so special.

“Knowing what an amazing place Occombe is, and how much it has meant to generations of local families, is something I’m incredibly passionate about. Our aim is to bring that back while investing in the future and creating a destination that benefits the whole local community.”