In a major decision on digital trademark rights, the Delhi High Court has barred Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd from allowing the use of the registered
trademark “HINDWARE” as advertising keywords on its platform. The ruling marks a significant development in India’s evolving legal position on online advertising and trademark protection. The Court observed that using a well-known trademark as a keyword trigger in search advertisements without authorisation amounts to trademark infringement and unfair commercial exploitation. The verdict came in the case titled Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC, Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, according to a report from ET Now. Justice Mini Pushkarna, in a judgment delivered on May 22, ruled in favour of Hindware Ltd. and permanently restrained Google entities from permitting the use of the word “HINDWARE” or similar variants within Google’s advertising system as trigger keywords. The Court also directed Google LLC and Google India to jointly pay Rs 30 lakh in nominal damages along with litigation costs. “Google cannot be permitted to shrug off responsibility by making available a tool that leads to infringement, and then turning around to claim that the said tool was not mandatory,” the Delhi HC said in the ruling, added the report. How The Dispute Started Hindware Ltd., previously known as HSIL Ltd. and later Brilloca Ltd., approached the Delhi High Court alleging infringement and dilution of its trademark “HINDWARE”, which has already been recognised by courts as a well-known trademark. According to the company, competing sanitaryware brands, including Grohe India and Cera Sanitaryware, had allegedly purchased the keyword “HINDWARE” and related search combinations through Google’s AdWords programme. As a result, advertisements for rival brands allegedly appeared when users searched for phrases such as “Hindware Sanitary”, “Hindware Sanitaryware” and “Hindware Sanitary Ware Indian”. Hindware argued that the practice diverted online traffic intended for its products and forced the company into defensive bidding merely to maintain visibility on search results. While Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware and Omkara Infweb later resolved their disputes through mediation and consent decrees, the proceedings against Google continued because the Court wanted to examine whether the advertising framework itself violated trademark law. Google defended its advertising model by arguing that keywords function only as backend triggers invisible to users. The company maintained that since consumers cannot actually see the keywords selected by advertisers, such usage cannot qualify as “use” under the Trade Marks Act. “Since, users can neither see, or otherwise perceive the keywords provided by the advertiser, such use of trademarks as keywords, being imperceptible or invisible to consumers, cannot be said to amount to ‘use’ under the Trade Marks Act,” it added, states the report. The Delhi High Court, however, rejected this argument. The Court held that even invisible or backend use of trademarks for advertising purposes falls within the scope of “use in advertising” under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment stated that keyword advertising manipulates search visibility and influences consumer behaviour, thereby carrying clear commercial value. Also Read: Mukesh Ambani Says Reliance Exploring ‘Strategic Pathways’ For Jio Growth Drawing parallels with unlawful meta-tagging practices, the Court noted that exploiting a competitor’s trademark to redirect online traffic amounts to misuse of established brand goodwill. “Thus, given the active role played by Google in suggesting and selling trademarks as keywords, and the design of the AdWords Policy and the Keyword Planner Tool, this Court is of the view that use of trademark as keyword amounts to use by Google also,” the Delhi High Court said, as per the report.
