Google loses out in trademark-keyword advertising dispute against Indian firm
23 June 2026
The Delhi High Court ruled against Google in a trademark-keyword advertising dispute involving Indian sanitaryware manufacturer Hindware and its competitors Cera and Grohe, ordering Google LLC and Google India to pay Rs3 million (US$31,760).
The global tech company was found to have infringed on Hindware’s registered trademark Hindware by letting Cera and Grohe, both headquartered in India, to bid on and purchase the mark and its related expressions and use these as keywords in Google Ads. The move resulted in both companies figuring prominently in search results for users who used Hindware and its related expressions as keywords.
Eventually, matters were settled between the plaintiff and the competitor-defendants. However, the case against Google proceeded.
“The court treated trademark Hindware as a coined, distinctive and well-known mark, deserving a higher degree of protection than marks that were the subject of earlier disputes concerning Google’s Ads programme,” said Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners in Bengaluru. According to the court, use of a trademark as a keyword constitutes “use” under the Trade Marks Act, despite the keyword being invisible to the consumer. Use “in advertising” under the statute is wider than merely visible use “in an advertisement.”
The court rejected Google’s defence of intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, stating that for an intermediary to claim such protection, its role must remain passive. Google was not a passive platform. Thakur explained: “Under its AdWords/Google Ads business model, by suggesting keywords, permitting bidding or auction, ranking advertisements through its system, and earning pay-per-click revenue, Google itself used and monetized the plaintiff’s mark. The court held that Google was effectively exploiting the advertising and commercial value of the mark Hindware, a coined and well-known mark, without consent.”
“This judgment is a reminder for intermediaries that safe harbour defences under the IT Act are not automatic. Intermediaries must be able to show that they have acted as neutral and passive platforms,” Thakur emphasized.
Also rejected was Google’s defence of fair, nominative or descriptive use under Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act. Google’s use of “Hindware” was found to neither identify the source of Hindware’s goods nor to describe the nature or characteristics of the goods. These are essential requirements for trademark protection.
The case and its outcome serve as a warning to business enterprises engaged in keyword advertising through intermediary platforms. When bidding on competitors’ marks, enterprises must be careful, especially if the marks are coined, distinctive or well known, as is the case with Hindware. “Merely because an advertising platform permits such bidding does not mean it is legally risk-free,” Thakur pointed out. “Descriptive use may offer limited protection in appropriate cases, but businesses should carefully assess the legal risks before using third-party marks as part of their advertising and promotional strategy.”
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Google from using Hindware and related expressions as advertising keywords.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
