Hindware v. Google — Delhi High Court Holds Google Liable for Trademark Infringement Through Keyword Advertising Program

Background

Hindware Ltd., a well-known Indian sanitaryware brand, filed suit in 2013-2014 alleging that Google’s Ads program (formerly AdWords) infringed its registered trademark “HINDWARE” by allowing direct competitors to bid on and purchase the mark as a keyword. When consumers searched for “Hindware” on Google, paid advertisements for competing sanitaryware brands appeared prominently in the results — diverting traffic away from Hindware’s own website.

Hindware alleged that Google did not merely host third-party advertisements passively, but actively suggested the “HINDWARE” trademark through its Keyword Planner Tool, auctioned the mark to competing bidders, and earned pay-per-click revenue each time a diverted user clicked a competitor’s ad. The original defendant Grohe India settled with Hindware during the litigation, leaving Google LLC and Google India as the remaining defendants.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had previously ruled in 2023 (in a related interlocutory appeal) that Google’s use of trademarks as keywords constitutes “use” by Google itself — not merely by the advertiser. The present judgment is the final trial-stage decision on the merits.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled comprehensively in favor of Hindware, holding that Google’s Ads program infringes the registered trademark “HINDWARE” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The court rejected Google’s characterization of itself as a passive intermediary. The judgment found that Google “actively auctions and sells the use of the trademarked terms, and earns revenue at the point of diversion of traffic.” The Keyword Planner Tool is not a neutral utility — it specifically suggests trademarked terms to competitors as high-value keywords likely to generate clicks, thereby monetizing the goodwill of trademark owners.

On the intermediary safe harbour defense under Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, the court held that Google fails to qualify because: (1) it selects the receiver of transmissions by targeting users who search for the trademark, violating Section 79(2)(b); (2) it fails to exercise due diligence under the Intermediary Guidelines by selling trademarks to competitors without the owner’s permission, violating Rule 3(1)(b)(iv); and (3) it actively aids and induces trademark infringement, triggering the Section 79(3) exception that removes safe harbour where the intermediary has “conspired, abetted, aided or induced” an unlawful act.

The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Google from using “HINDWARE” or any combination thereof as advertising keywords, and awarded nominal damages of ₹30 lakhs (approximately $36,000 USD) jointly and severally against Google LLC and Google India, plus actual litigation costs.

Key Takeaways

• Google’s Keyword Advertising program can constitute direct trademark infringement in India — not merely contributory or secondary liability — because Google actively suggests, auctions, and monetizes trademarked terms.
• Google does not qualify for intermediary safe harbour under India’s IT Act when it actively selects ad recipients based on trademark searches and fails to prevent competitors from purchasing well-known marks as keywords.
• A prominent house mark on the competitor’s ad (e.g., the competitor’s own brand name) does not cure the confusion caused by initial-interest diversion from the trademark search to a competitor’s sponsored link.
• This is the first final trial-stage judgment by an Indian court holding Google liable for keyword trademark infringement — previous rulings were at the interim injunction stage.

Why It Matters

This decision represents the most comprehensive Indian judicial treatment of Google’s keyword advertising and trademark rights, running to 163 pages. It firmly establishes that in India, Google cannot claim to be a neutral platform when it actively profits from auctioning registered trademarks to competitors.

For brand owners operating in India, the ruling provides a powerful precedent: trademark owners can now obtain permanent injunctions and damages against Google itself — not just against the competing advertisers. For Google, the ruling threatens the core revenue model of its search advertising business in India, which relies on allowing any advertiser to bid on any search term, including competitors’ trademarks.

The judgment diverges from the EU approach in Google France v. Louis Vuitton (CJEU, 2010), where the court held that a search engine operator does not itself “use” a trademark merely by allowing advertisers to select it as a keyword. The Delhi High Court explicitly distinguished these European authorities, finding that Google’s role in the Indian market goes well beyond passive keyword storage — it actively suggests and auctions marks. International brands and platforms doing business in India will need to adjust their advertising compliance practices accordingly.