Google challenges Delhi HC order on use of trademarks as ad keywords
Google India has challenged the Delhi High Court’s single judge order holding it liable for trademark infringement that allowed advertisers to bid on Hindware’s registered trademark as a keyword on the Google Ads platform, escalating a closely watched legal battle that could reshape the rules governing online advertising in India.
The appeal is expected to be heard by a division bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on Friday, according to the court’s case list.
The appeal challenges Judge Mini Pushkarna’s May 22 decision, which held that Google’s practice of allowing advertisers to bid on Hindware’s registered trademark as keywords under its Google Ads (formerly AdWords) program constituted trademark infringement.
The court also ordered Google to pay ₹30 lakh compensation and litigation costs.
Replying to mint Responding to questions, a Google spokesperson said: “We are appealing the Delhi High Court’s decision, which differs from established legal precedent in India. Our advertising policies reflect standard practices that enable competition and provide consumers with greater choice. We look forward to presenting our case to the court.”
Hindware did not respond to Mint’s questions by press time.
The dispute dates back to 2013-14, when plumbing manufacturer Hindware Ltd, along with rival companies Cera and Grohe, sued Google, claiming the rivals had bought the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword on Google’s advertising platform.
Hindware argued that searches for its products triggered sponsored ads for rival brands, distracting consumers and exploiting goodwill associated with its trademark.
The company later settled its disputes with Cera and Grohe but continued to pursue claims against Google, arguing that the company facilitated and monetized the unauthorized use of its trademark by auctioning it as an advertising keyword.
Google, meanwhile, argued that the keywords merely functioned as invisible backend triggers to display ads and therefore did not amount to trademark use. He also argued that he was merely acting as an intermediary and was entitled to safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Rejecting Google’s defense, the sole judge ruled that allowing competitors to bid on the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword amounted to trademark infringement. The court ruled that a trademark did not need to appear in an advertisement to constitute “advertising use” and found that Google was not a passive intermediary because it actively conducted keyword auctions.
The court also prohibited Google from allowing the use of the “HINDWARE” trademark and its variations as advertising keywords.
In its appeal, Google argued that the decision would make India the “sole outlier” among major jurisdictions in its handling of keyword advertising, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the digital advertising ecosystem.
The company argued that the decision would harm online consumer choice, competition and competitive markets by restricting how businesses advertise online.
The appeal is expected to be watched closely as it could set an important precedent for the extent to which digital platforms can allow, auction and monetize trademarked search terms, as well as balancing trademark rights with competition in online advertising.
