NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has held that using a competitor’s registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword may amount to infringement, even if the mark is not visible in the advertisement, and directed US technology giant Google LLC and its Indian subsidiary Google India to jointly pay ₹30 lakh in damages in a dispute brought by sanitaryware maker Hindware.
The ruling, delivered on 22 May, could reshape keyword-based advertising in India and raises questions over the extent to which digital platforms can auction and monetise branded search terms. Advertisers, platforms and brand owners are now assessing its implications for online marketing.
Mint explains the case and its wider impact.
What was the dispute about?
The case dates to 2013–14, when Hindware sued Google and rival sanitaryware companies Cera and Grohe, alleging they had purchased the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a Google Ads keyword. Hindware said searches for its products triggered sponsored ads from competitors, diverting customers and exploiting the goodwill attached to its brand.
Hindware later settled its disputes with Cera and Grohe in 2017 but continued its case against Google, arguing the company facilitated and profited from the use of its trademark through keyword auctions and advertising tools.
Google argued that keywords are invisible backend triggers that do not constitute trademark use. It also said it acted as an intermediary and was entitled to safe-harbour protection under the Information Technology Act.
What did the court rule?
The Delhi High Court held that Google’s advertising system enabled competitors to use the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword, allowing rival ads to appear when users searched for Hindware products.
It said a trademark does not need to be visible in an advertisement to qualify as “use in advertising” under the Trade Marks Act. Using a registered mark as a keyword to trigger sponsored results, the court held, is a commercial use of the mark and can amount to infringement.
The court rejected Google’s argument that it was merely a passive intermediary. It noted that Google actively operated keyword auctions, provided advertising tools and earned revenue from the system. It restrained Google from allowing the use of the “HINDWARE” trademark and related variations as advertising keywords, and awarded Hindware ₹30 lakh in damages and costs.
Why does the ruling matter?
Legal experts say the ruling could make it riskier for companies to bid on competitors’ trademarks as Google Ads keywords, potentially forcing advertisers to rethink keyword strategies. It may also increase trademark disputes linked to digital advertising.
Neeha Nagpal, founding and managing partner at N & Company Legal, said the ruling expands trademark protection in the digital ecosystem by recognising trademarks and trade names as key commercial assets online. She said the earlier emphasis on proving consumer confusion set an excessively high and subjective threshold, which could prejudice trademark owners and allow competitors to benefit from established brand goodwill.
Ankit Sahni, partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates, said the ruling recognises that online infringement need not involve visible use of a trademark. If a registered mark is used within the advertising architecture to divert traffic, monetise goodwill or tap a brand’s commercial pull, courts may treat it as actionable infringement.
The judgment comes as India’s digital advertising market expands rapidly. According to Grand View Research, the sector generated $13.6 billion in revenue in 2024 and is projected to more than double to $32.3 billion by 2030. Search advertising revenue is expected to cross ₹20,538 crore in 2025, according to MAGNA, the media intelligence and forecasting unit of IPG Mediabrands, accounting for about 15% of total ad spend.
What does it mean for platforms?
The court found Google was not a passive intermediary hosting third-party ads, but an active participant in the advertising ecosystem through keyword auctions, ad tools, traffic generation mechanisms and a pay-per-click revenue model.
“The judgment indicates that Google cannot always be viewed as a passive intermediary when it comes to its advertising business,” said Varun Katiyar, managing partner at Consortium Legal. “Where a platform plays an active role in facilitating and monetising the use of trademarks, it may not be able to rely solely on intermediary protections.”
What is the legal framework?
Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, platforms such as Google, Meta, and X enjoy safe-harbour protection from liability for third-party content, provided they act as neutral intermediaries, follow due diligence obligations and take action against unlawful content when required.
Legal experts say the ruling does not remove intermediary protection entirely. Instead, it suggests platforms may lose safe harbour if they move beyond a passive hosting role and actively facilitate, auction or profit from the use of trademarked keywords.
“The court found that Google’s involvement in suggesting, auctioning and monetising trademarked keywords went beyond the role of a neutral intermediary. Safe harbour was denied because of Google’s active commercial participation in the exploitation of trademark rights, not merely because it was a digital platform,” said Ankit Rajgarhia, partner at Bahuguna Law Associates.
What is the industry saying?
Industry executives say branded search terms often reflect users already intent on buying a specific company’s products or services, and allowing competitors to bid on those terms can redirect that demand.
Jatan Bawa, co-founder of oral care brand Perfora, said the ruling could particularly benefit direct-to-consumer brands investing heavily in consumer awareness. Preventing rivals from bidding on trademarked search terms, he said, would help companies capture demand generated by their own marketing rather than losing traffic to competitors.