Google India has challenged a Delhi High Court single-judge ruling that held it liable for trademark infringement for allowing advertisers to bid on Hindware’s registered trademark as a keyword on its Google Ads platform, escalating a closely watched legal battle that could reshape the rules governing online advertising in India.
According to the court’s cause list, the appeal is likely to be heard on Friday by a division bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
The appeal challenges a 22 May judgment by Justice Mini Pushkarna, which held that Google’s practice of allowing advertisers to bid on Hindware’s registered trademark as a keyword under its Ads (formerly AdWords) programme amounted to trademark infringement.
The court also directed Google to pay ₹30 lakh in damages and litigation costs.
Responding to Mint’s queries, a Google spokesperson said, “We are appealing the Delhi High Court’s order, which diverges from established precedents in India. Our ads policies reflect standard practices that enable competition and give consumers more choices. We look forward to presenting our position to the court.”
Hindware did not respond to Mint’s queries till press time.
The dispute dates back to 2013-14, when sanitaryware manufacturer Hindware Ltd sued Google along with rival companies Cera and Grohe, alleging that the competitors had purchased the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword on Google’s advertising platform.
Hindware contended that searches for its products triggered sponsored advertisements for competing brands, diverting consumers and exploiting the goodwill associated with its trademark.
The company subsequently settled its disputes with Cera and Grohe but continued pursuing its 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, maintained that keywords function only as invisible backend triggers for displaying advertisements and therefore do not amount to trademark use. It also argued that it merely acted as an intermediary and was entitled to safe harbour protection under 79 of the Information Technology Act.
Rejecting Google’s defence, the single judge held that allowing competitors to bid on the registered “HINDWARE” trademark as a keyword amounted to trademark infringement. The court ruled that a trademark need not be visible in an advertisement to constitute “use in advertising” and found that Google was not a passive intermediary because it actively operated keyword auctions.
The court also restrained Google from permitting the use of the “HINDWARE” trademark and its variations as advertising keywords.
In its appeal, Google has argued that the ruling would make India the “sole outlier” among major jurisdictions in its treatment of keyword advertising, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the digital advertising ecosystem.
The company has contended that the judgment would harm online consumer choice, competition and competitive markets by restricting how businesses advertise online.
The appeal is expected to be closely watched as it could set an important precedent on the extent to which digital platforms can permit, auction and monetize trademarked search terms while balancing trademark rights with competition in online advertising.