Delhi High Court’s pathbreaking ruling on Google keyword advertising | Explained
A recent decision by the Delhi High Court in the long-running trademark dispute initiated by Hindware Limited could shape how Google handles keyword advertising, especially when trademarks are used in sponsored search results.
In the 163-page decision handed down on May 22, Justice Mini Pushkarna examined whether a company could purchase another company’s registered trademark as a keyword under Google Ads so that its ads would appear at the top of the list when users search for that trademark.
What was the dispute about?
In early 2013, Hindware Limited, which is in the business of sanitary ware products, discovered that rival sanitary companies Grohe India Private Limited and Cera Sanitaryware Limited had acquired the trademark ‘Hindware’ as a keyword through Google’s AdWords programme.
As a result, when a consumer searches for ‘Hindware’ on the Google search engine, the first result that appears is Cera’s website. Additionally, when someone searched for ‘Hindware Sanitary’ or ‘Hindware Sanitaryware’ the first result came from Grohe’s website.
Hindware argued that its registered and well-known trademark was being offered or suggested to be used by Google to create advertising for competitors or any other entity. Hindware said this was done without their prior consent or approval.
Later, Cera and Grohe settled with Hindware, leaving the main legal fight to continue against Google India and Google LLC.
What exactly is keyword advertising?
Google operates a program known as ‘Google AdWords’, which is a form of keyword advertising that allows advertisers to place ads along with search results on www.google.com search engines.
Under Google AdWords, advertisers bid on words or phrases called ‘keywords’ that trigger or create a sponsored ad when a user enters these terms into Google Search.
For example, if someone specifically searches for Nokia or Sony, another company can buy the keywords ‘Nokia’ or ‘Sony’ for a fee earned by Google, so the user is shown the ad or websites of the person who purchased the ad, rather than the organic result, i.e. Nokia or Sony’s websites.
Why did Hindware object?
Hindware claimed that ‘HINDWARE’ is a registered and well-known trademark with a significant reputation built over decades.
The Company expressly argued that the use of its trademark as a keyword for the display of advertisements amounted to the use of the trademark “in advertising” within the meaning of Article 29(6) of the Trademark Act.
It has been argued that if a consumer specifically searches for the term ‘Hindware’, it is clear that he or she is specifically looking for their products. Showing the consumer the first search result of another company will cause confusion and direct potential customers to competing brands.
Until 2009, Google did not allow the use of trademarks as keywords in India, but after 2009, this policy was changed. It was stated that the policy implemented in India was a deviation from the policy followed by Google for the European Union (EU) and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries.
What was Google’s defense?
Google argued that keywords act as a backend trigger to display ads in response to a search query entered by a user. Since users cannot see the keywords provided by the advertiser, the use of trademarks as keywords cannot be said to constitute ‘use’ under the Trademark Law.
When multiple advertisers attempt to select the same word as a keyword, including a trademarked term, Google conducts an auction or bid on the trademarked term and earns a Cost Per Click amount as revenue.
Regarding the issue of confusion among users, Google argued that inorganic or sponsored search results are tagged with the ‘ad’ prefix to distinguish them from organic search results, eliminating the possibility of confusion among users.
Why is the decision important?
The case touches on a growing global conflict between trademark law and digital advertising models.
Search engines generate revenue through keyword advertising systems. By auctioning off the registered trademark to its competitors, Google generates revenue from the trademark owner’s multiple competitors.
The court ruled in favor of Hindware, prohibiting Google from using the name ‘Hindware’ or any combination of related words as part of its advertising keywords.
He observed that Google’s behavior amounted to “free-riding” as the trademark owner made money from its investments over the years. The court said that by actively recommending, promoting and auctioning trademarks to third parties, Google was taking advantage of the trademark’s reputation, selling the brand’s power to attract consumers to other competitors in order to increase participation in its own AdWords Policy and generate greater profits.
“By doing this, Google tried to sell something it didn’t have.”
Beyond this case, why is the decision important?
The decision is expected to impact trademark disputes related to online advertising in India. This could affect how freely companies can use competitors’ brand names in online ads and search results.
Hindu He asked Google for a response but has yet to receive one.
It was published – 31 May 2026 06:55 IST
