Delhi HC refuses interim relief to Google in Hindware trademark dispute

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to grant interim protection to Google India in its appeal against a single-judge ruling that held the company liable for trademark infringement over its Google Ads platform in a dispute with sanitaryware maker Hindware.

A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on Google's appeal but declined to stay the operation of the 22 May judgment, which directed the company to pay ₹30 lakh in damages for trademark infringement.

The bench said it would hear Google's challenge in detail and posted the matter for further hearing on 24 July.

The case is likely 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.

Google has challenged the single-judge ruling that held it liable for allowing advertisers to bid on Hindware's registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword.

The single judge had held that such use amounted to trademark infringement, restrained Google from permitting the use of the "HINDWARE" trademark and its variations as advertising keywords, and directed the company to pay ₹30 lakh towards damages and litigation costs.

Keyword debate

During the hearing, appearing for Google, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the judgment conflated the visible use of a trademark in an advertisement with the invisible use of a trademark as an internal keyword.

Singhvi argued that no court globally had held that merely using a trademark as a keyword amounted to trademark infringement and said Google's keyword advertising policy was followed uniformly across multiple jurisdictions. According to him, courts in at least 14 countries have declined to treat keyword bidding as trademark infringement.

Singhvi further argued that Google functions as a search platform serving the larger public interest and that users often search for branded terms to compare competing products and services. Preventing advertisers from bidding on trademarked keywords, he said, would have a cascading effect on internet search, online advertising and competition.

Google's stand

In its appeal, Google contended that allowing advertisers to bid on competitors' trademarks as keywords is a globally accepted advertising practice that promotes competition and consumer choice.

It maintained that keywords are merely internal triggers used to display advertisements and do not amount to trademark use. Google also argued that previous Indian court rulings and the Competition Commission of India have recognised that its keyword advertising policy benefits consumers and encourages competition.

The dispute dates back to 2013-14, when Hindware sued Google along with rival sanitaryware companies Cera and Grohe, alleging that they had purchased the registered "HINDWARE" trademark as a Google Ads keyword, resulting in sponsored advertisements of competing brands appearing when users searched for Hindware products.

Hindware later settled its disputes with Cera and Grohe but continued pursuing its claims against Google.

Earlier rulings

While the Hindware ruling marks the first time Google has been held liable for trademark infringement over its keyword advertising platform in India, the legal battle over keyword advertising itself is not new.

In August 2023, the Delhi High Court, in a dispute involving Google and DRS Logistics (Aggarwal Packers & Movers), held that the backend use of a competitor's trademark as a Google Ads keyword does not, by itself, amount to trademark infringement.

The division bench ruled that liability would arise only if the resulting advertisement caused consumer confusion, deception, dilution or unfairly exploited the trademark owner's goodwill.

Similarly, in December 2023, the Delhi High Court, in a dispute involving Google, MakeMyTrip and Booking.com, reiterated that bidding on a competitor's trademark as a Google Ads keyword is not automatically unlawful, holding again that infringement would arise only if the advertisement misled consumers or created confusion about the source of the goods or services.

In its appeal in the Hindware case, Google has relied on these two division bench rulings to contend that the 22 May judgment did not follow the settled legal principles governing keyword advertising.