Delhi High Court: Google Need Not Proactively Monitor Trademarks in Ads

Google is not obliged to proactively police advertisements for trademark misuse and operates within a complaint-based system, the Delhi High Court has held while dismissing a contempt petition by DRS Logistics. The judgment, reported as 2026 DHC 5102 and delivered on 15 June 2026 by Justice Tejas Karia, clarifies the duties of online advertising platforms when third parties use registered trademarks as keywords or in ad text.

DRS Logistics, which owns marks associated with Agarwal Packers and Movers, had accused Google of disobeying earlier Delhi High Court directions after advertisers continued to use its marks in sponsored results. The Court found no contempt.

Background to the dispute

The litigation concerns the long-running question of how trademark law applies to the Google Ads program, where advertisers can bid on keywords that may include a competitor's brand name. Earlier rounds of the case had recognised that the use of a trademark as a keyword can, in some circumstances, amount to infringement or passing off, and had directed Google to act on complaints. DRS Logistics argued that infringing ads continued to appear and that Google had failed to comply.

The platform's position was that it acts promptly when it receives specific complaints identifying offending advertisements, but that no order had cast on it a free-standing duty to monitor the entire ad ecosystem on its own.

What the Court held

Justice Karia held that the earlier judgments did not impose an obligation on Google to independently monitor or pre-filter advertisements for possible trademark infringement. The directions, the Court said, operated within a complaint-based framework: the platform was required to act on specific complaints, and there was no finding that it had failed to do so. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed.

The Court was careful to distinguish between the substantive question of infringement, which remains to be decided in the main proceedings, and the narrow question of contempt, which only asks whether a clear and binding direction was wilfully disobeyed.

A long-running keyword dispute

The dispute has a long history. In earlier rounds, the Delhi High Court examined whether the use of a registered trademark as a keyword in the Google Ads program could amount to infringement or passing off, and recognised that in some circumstances such use is actionable, particularly where it causes confusion or diverts custom from the trademark owner. Those findings led to directions requiring the platform to address complaints about infringing advertisements. The present round did not revisit that substantive question; it asked only whether Google had wilfully breached a specific and clear direction, and the Court found that it had not.

By confining itself to the contempt question, the Court left the larger issues about keyword advertising and platform liability to be decided in the main proceedings and in future cases, where a full evidentiary record can be examined. The distinction is important: a finding that there was no contempt is not a finding that the underlying advertising practices are lawful.

Practical implications for brand owners

For trademark owners, the message is that enforcement against keyword and ad-text misuse is largely complaint-driven. Brands must continue to monitor sponsored results themselves, identify specific infringing advertisements, and notify the platform, rather than rely on the platform to filter ads in advance. This fits a broader pattern in recent Delhi High Court trademark rulings, including the decision that the term GLASS SKIN is descriptive and cannot be monopolised for cosmetics, and the order cancelling a copyright registration used to back a disputed mark.

If you are building a brand, the starting point is a strong registration. Our guide on how to register a trademark in India explains the classes, fees, and timeline involved.

Advertisers, for their part, should not assume that bidding on a competitor's brand name is risk-free. While the platform may not be obliged to police advertisements in advance, an advertiser who uses another party's mark in a misleading way can still face liability in an infringement or passing-off action. Comparative advertising and keyword bidding remain legally sensitive areas, and a cautious approach to using rival marks, supported by legal advice on the specific creative and landing page, is prudent. A registered trademark also gives the owner a firmer footing to demand removal and to sue, which is why timely registration and active monitoring go hand in hand for any serious brand.

Related Reading

For a recent content-protection dispute, see the Madras High Court order restraining the Telugu OTT release of Drishyam 3 over copyright.

To protect original creative work, read how to register a copyright in India.

Key Takeaways

Online ad platforms such as Google are not required to proactively monitor or pre-filter advertisements for trademark misuse and act within a complaint-based system. Brand owners should continuously watch sponsored results, document specific infringing ads, and send precise takedown notices. The wider question of whether keyword use infringes a mark remains to be decided in the substantive case.