Delhi High Court Holds Google Liable for Trademark Infringement in Hindware Keyword Ads Case

The Delhi High Court has delivered a landmark ruling holding Google liable for trademark infringement for allowing competitors to bid on the registered trademark "HINDWARE" as a keyword in its Google Ads programme. Justice Mini Pushkarna, in a judgment delivered on May 22, 2026, permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from permitting the use of "HINDWARE" or any deceptively similar variations as advertising keywords, and directed Google to jointly pay Rs 30 lakh as nominal damages to Hindware Limited. The ruling has far-reaching implications for digital advertising, keyword bidding, and trademark enforcement in India.

How Google Ads Keyword Bidding Works

Google Ads operates on an auction system where advertisers bid on keywords so that their advertisements appear when users search for those terms. Under Google's existing trademark policy, competitors could bid on another brand's registered trademark as a keyword, provided the trademark did not appear in the visible ad text. This meant that if a user searched for "Hindware," a competitor's advertisement could appear at the top of the search results, diverting traffic away from the trademark owner. The practice, known as keyword advertising or brand bidding, has been a contentious area of trademark law globally.

The Court's Legal Analysis Under the Trade Marks Act 1999

Justice Pushkarna relied on Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which recognises the use of a trademark "in advertising" as a form of infringement. The Court held that it is not necessary for the registered trademark to physically appear in an advertisement for the use to qualify as "use in advertising" under the Act. The invisible deployment of a trademark as a keyword to trigger advertisements is sufficient. The Court further held that Section 29(8) was attracted because the advertising took unfair advantage of Hindware's goodwill and was contrary to honest commercial practices. Google's argument that it was merely a passive intermediary was rejected; the Court found that Google actively profits from selling trademarked keywords through its auction system.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute dates back to 2013, when Hindware discovered that rival sanitaryware firm Cera Sanitaryware and its website developer, Omkara Infoweb, were purchasing the "HINDWARE" trademark as a keyword under Google's AdWords programme. In October 2014, Hindware found that plumbing fixtures company Grohe had also purchased the trademark as a keyword. Hindware initiated legal proceedings against Google, Cera, Omkara, and Grohe. The case required the Court to determine whether Google's role in facilitating keyword bidding on registered trademarks constituted infringement or merely a neutral intermediary service.

Impact on Digital Advertising in India

This ruling has immediate practical consequences for businesses running Google Ads campaigns in India. Bidding on a competitor's registered trademark as a keyword is now a potential legal liability, regardless of whether the trademark appears in the visible ad text. Google has responded by stating that its trademark keyword policy complies with Indian law, suggesting that an appeal is likely. For brand owners, the ruling provides a powerful tool to challenge competitor keyword bidding and protect brand equity in search results.

Key Takeaways

First, using a registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword constitutes "use in advertising" under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, even if the mark does not visibly appear in the advertisement. Second, Google is not a passive intermediary in keyword advertising; it actively facilitates and profits from the auction of trademarked keywords. Third, businesses running pay-per-click campaigns that target competitor brand names as keywords face infringement claims and damages. Fourth, the ruling strengthens trademark protection in the digital advertising space and may prompt Google to revise its keyword policy for India. Fifth, brand owners should audit their Google Ads strategies and consider enforcement action where competitors are bidding on their registered trademarks.