Bidding on Brands: Delhi High Court Holds Google Liable for Keyword Trademark Infringement
co-authored by Gautam Panchal (Partner), Priyanka Prabhakar (Associate), and Yashasvi Tiwari (Intern) from our Intellectual Property team.
INTRODUCTION
Search engine advertising has long operated on a model that permits advertisers to bid on virtually any keyword, including the registered trademarks of their competitors. As a result, when a user searches for a particular trademark, sponsored advertisements of competing businesses may appear prominently at the top of the search results. While the search engine generates revenue each time a user clicks on such advertisements, the trademark proprietor, despite having invested substantial resources in building the goodwill associated with its mark receives no benefit from such use.
Whether this practice constitutes trademark infringement under Indian law has remained a highly contentious issue.
This issue was decisively addressed by the Delhi High Court on May 22, 2026, in the landmark case of Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Hindware Limited instituted legal proceedings against, among others, Google LLC and Google India Pvt. Ltd., challenging the use of its registered trademark as a keyword in Google’s advertising programmes. The Court held that the use of a registered, coined trademark as a keyword for search engine advertising amounts to trademark infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It further held that Google could not claim the protection of the safe harbour provisions contained in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The trademark ‘HINDWARE’ has been used continuously by Hindware Ltd. (formerly HSIL Limited) since 1991. The mark is a coined expression with no dictionary meaning and was created entirely by the plaintiff. At the time the suits were filed, Hindware held approximately 40% of the organised sanitaryware market in India, generated annual sales exceeding ₹500 crores, and spent over ₹50 crores annually on advertising and brand promotion. Recognizing this extensive market presence and reputation, the Delhi High Court formally recognised HINDWARE as a well-known trademark in April 2017.
In early 2013, Hindware discovered that Cera Sanitaryware Ltd., acting through its web developer Omkara Infoweb Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the keyword “HINDWARE” under Google’s AdWords programme. Consequently, users searching for the specific term “HINDWARE” on Google’s search engine were shown sponsored links directing them to Cera’s website. A similar situation arose in October 2014 when advertisements for Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. appeared prominently in response to searches for terms such as “HINDWARE SANITARY”, “HINDWARE SANITARYWARE”, and “HINDWARE SANITARY WARE INDIA”.
Google’s advertising system functions through a complex, real-time keyword auction mechanism. Advertisers bid on selected keywords, and Google earns substantial revenue through a cost-per-click (CPC) model, under which it receives payment whenever a user clicks on a sponsored advertisement. Google also provides advertisers with a Keyword Planner tool, which actively suggests relevant keywords to optimize ad campaigns including, in some cases, protected trademarks owned by third parties.
During the trial, evidence revealed that Google had neither sought nor obtained permission from Hindware to make its trademarks available for keyword bidding, either before or after an interim injunction order was passed in November 2014. Significantly, during the proceedings, when the term “Hindware Faucets” was entered into Google’s search engine in court, a sponsored advertisement for Kohler appeared directly in the search results, demonstrating the real-time operation of the system.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The Court considered three principal legal issues arising from the dispute:
i.Whether the use of a trademark as a keyword constitutes “use” under the Trade Marks Act;
ii.Whether Google’s conduct amounted to trademark infringement; and
iii.Whether Google was entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
USE OF A TRADEMARK AS A KEYWORD
Google argued that keywords are backend data invisible to ordinary users and therefore do not amount to “use” of a trademark in the legal sense. The Court flatly rejected this contention.
The Court noted that Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act explicitly refers to the use of a trademark in “advertising”. By employing the broader term “advertising” rather than merely “advertisement”, the legislature intended to encompass the entire advertising process. Since the selection, backend deployment, and optimization of keywords form an integral part of the process through which advertisements are triggered and displayed to users, the use of a trademark as a keyword falls squarely within the scope of trademark use under the Act.
WHETHER THE USE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOOGLE
Google contended that the choice of keywords was made solely by independent advertisers and that it merely provided the technical platform through which advertisements were displayed.
The Court strongly disagreed. It observed that Google played an active, interventionist role in the advertising process through its Keyword Planner tool, which suggested keywords based on its own proprietary algorithms. Google also conducted the real-time auctions for keyword bidding and ultimately determined which advertisements would be displayed to users. Further, Google directly profited from this arrangement through its cost-per-click revenue model. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Google’s involvement extended far beyond that of a passive internet intermediary.
INFRINGEMENT UNDER SECTION 29(8)
The Court held that Google’s conduct constituted infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, which prohibits advertising that takes unfair advantage of, or is contrary to honest practices in relation to, a registered trademark.
Importantly, the Court clarified that liability under Section 29(8) does not depend upon proving a likelihood of consumer confusion. The provision protects not only the source-identifying function of a trademark but also its broader advertising and investment functions.
In the present case, HINDWARE was a coined mark that derived its immense commercial value solely from the substantial investments made by the plaintiff over several decades. By making this specific trademark available for purchase by direct competitors and generating revenue from such transactions, Google exploited the goodwill attached to the mark without the proprietor’s consent and without sharing any portion of the resulting profits. The Court characterised this as an unauthorised appropriation of the plaintiff’s proprietary rights and even referenced Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights from arbitrary deprivation.
APPLICABILITY OF THE SAFE HARBOUR PROVISION UNDER SECTION 79
Google further argued that, as an intermediary, it was entitled to immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act for third-party content hosted on its platform. The Court rejected this defence on two specific grounds: First, Section 79(1) protects intermediaries only in respect of third-party information hosted or transmitted through their systems. The Court found that Google’s role in keyword selection, recommendation, auctioning, and monetisation rendered the impugned conduct its own commercial activity rather than merely hosted third-party content.
Secondly, even assuming Section 79(1) was applicable, Google failed to satisfy the essential requirements of Section 79(2)(b), which requires that an intermediary not select the receiver of a communication. The Court observed that Google specifically targeted users searching for “HINDWARE” and directed competing advertisements to those users, thereby actively selecting the intended recipients of the communication.
The Court also rejected Google’s reliance on Sections 30(1), 30(2)(a), and 35 of the Trade Marks Act. Given that HINDWARE was a uniquely coined and well-known mark, the statutory defences based on honest or descriptive use were completely unavailable to the defendants.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON BUSINESSES
The judgment marks a pivotal development in Indian trademark jurisprudence. Earlier Delhi High Court decisions, including Google LLC v. DRS Logistics and Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip, primarily concerned trademarks that were descriptive or generic in nature. The present case is deeply significant because it directly addresses the use of a coined and well-known trademark in keyword advertising and establishes a distinct, more stringent legal framework for such marks.
The ruling provides valuable clarity for trademark proprietors.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR BRAND OWNERS
First, the ruling provides vital procedural relief by confirming that owners of coined or well-known marks may proceed directly against search engines or digital platforms that facilitate keyword advertising. Instead of being limited to exhausting resources by chasing thousands of individual competitors and advertisers in piecemeal litigation, brand owners can now target the root platform enabling the practice.
Secondly, it lowers the evidentiary burden for brand owners by clarifying that trademark infringement under Section 29(8) can be established without demonstrating a likelihood of consumer confusion. As long as there is clear evidence of unfair commercial exploitation of the trademark’s goodwill for corporate gain, the courts will recognize the harm to the brand’s advertising and investment functions.
Finally, the judgment fundamentally alters the digital legal landscape by narrowing the scope of intermediary immunity. It makes it clear that safe harbour protection does not extend to a digital platform’s own automated decision-making processes, algorithmic recommendations, and commercial ad-monetization activities, ensuring tech giants remain legally accountable for what they profit from.
The decision also has immediate implications for intermediary due diligence obligations. Google admitted during the trial that it had no active policy preventing the use of trademarked terms as keywords and did not verify whether suggested keywords were protected trademarks. The Court found this lack of diligence inconsistent with the obligations imposed under the applicable intermediary framework, signalling that digital platforms may now be required to adopt much more robust, proactive mechanisms to prevent trademark misuse on their networks.
The reasoning adopted by the Court is also highly likely to influence future disputes involving other digital advertising, e-commerce, and search platforms that rely on keyword-based advertising or search-recommendation models. The Court’s heavy emphasis on the active role played by platforms in recommending, auctioning, and monetising keywords suggests that similar business models will face intense judicial scrutiny where registered trademarks are leveraged without authorization.
Beyond its immediate legal implications, the judgment represents a significant victory for corporate businesses seeking to protect the hard-earned commercial value of their brands in the digital marketplace. Traditionally, trademark enforcement focused heavily on preventing physical counterfeit goods, deceptive branding, or confusingly similar marks. This decision significantly expands the scope of modern protection by recognising that the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a trademark through keyword advertising can erode the exclusivity of a brand and unfairly divert the benefits of the proprietor’s investment.
Businesses now possess an additional, powerful legal avenue to safeguard their trademarks against competitors and online platforms that seek to profit from the goodwill attached to established marks. In an era where consumer searches overwhelmingly begin online, the judgment reinforces the core principle that trademark rights extend not only to physical markets but also to digital advertising ecosystems, providing brand owners with a vital tool to preserve the exclusivity and economic value of their intellectual property.
