- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Law Firm industries
Imagine a customer looking specifically for your showroom, but before they reach it, they are shown a competitor’s offer because that competitor paid to use your name to get their attention. That is essentially what happened in the Hindware case, where competitors bid on the “HINDWARE” trademark as a Google advertising keyword. The Delhi High Court’s ruling on this practice has important implications not only for trademark owners, but also for digital platforms and advertisers in India.
The Story Behind the Case
The dispute traces back to 2013, when Hindware Limited, the well-known sanitaryware brand, discovered that searches for its trademark “HINDWARE” were generating sponsored advertisements for Cera Sanitaryware, a direct competitor. In 2014, Hindware identified similar use by Grohe, which had also bid on the HINDWARE trademark as a keyword through Google’s AdWords programme.
Both competitors had purchased “HINDWARE” and its variants as advertising keywords through Google’s keyword auction system. As a result, users searching specifically for Hindware could be presented with sponsored links directing them to competing businesses.
Hindware consequently initiated proceedings not only against the competing advertisers, but also against Google, raising the broader question of the platform’s liability for the use of third-party trademarks within its advertising ecosystem.
The Verdict: Google Is Not Just a Bystander
On 22 May 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered her judgment in Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 591/2017 and 592/2017]. The Court was clear: Google could not provide a tool that enabled infringement and then avoid responsibility simply because its use was optional.
The Court permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from using “HINDWARE” and related marks as advertising keywords and awarded ₹30 lakh in nominal damages.
More significant than the relief was the reasoning. Google argued that it merely facilitated keyword auctions and did not itself “use” the trademarks. The Delhi High Court disagreed, emphasising Google’s active role in promoting and monetising trademarked terms. It rejected Google’s intermediary defence under the IT Act and held that use of “HINDWARE” as an advertising keyword constituted trademark infringement.
The Invisible Hand Behind Your Search Results
Another important aspect of the ruling concerns the “invisible” use of trademarks. The Court held that a trademark need not actually appear in an advertisement for its use to attract liability. Using a competitor’s trademark as a keyword to divert users searching for that brand can itself amount to “use” under Indian trademark law.
Put simply, even if Cera’s advertisement never displayed the word “Hindware,” using it behind the scenes to trigger the advertisement could still constitute infringement.
A Break From the Rest of the World
This is where the judgment gets genuinely bold. Courts abroad, including the European Court of Justice in Google France v. Louis Vuitton and L'Oreal v. eBay, have generally been reluctant to hold search platforms directly liable, treating them as neutral technical intermediaries. Even in India, an earlier ruling had leaned toward this view, holding that invisible keyword bidding, without visible confusion to the consumer, would not amount to "use" in trade at all.
The Delhi High Court in Hindware consciously departed from that reasoning. It shifted the focus away from whether the consumer could see the trademark, and toward the economic reality of what keyword auctions actually do, i.e., deliberately steering paying customers away from the brand they searched for, toward a rival who paid for that privilege. As one legal commentary summarized it, the Court’s approach represents a shift from viewing keyword advertising as a neutral technological process to treating it as structured commercial exploitation of trademarks.
The Court looked past the technology and asked a simple question a shopkeeper would understand, who profited from confusing my customer, and did they do it deliberately?
Google Is Fighting Back
The matter is far from settled. Google has appealed the ruling before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Single Judge’s decision is inconsistent with existing precedent and internationally accepted advertising practices.
The appeal is listed for final hearing. Its outcome could either affirm or significantly narrow the principles laid down in the judgment. Businesses should therefore watch the appeal closely, but need not wait for its outcome before reviewing their own keyword advertising practices.
What Should Businesses Actually Do?
For business owners, brand managers, and in-house counsel, this judgment, even while under appeal, offers some useful housekeeping action points:
-
Monitor your brand online. Understand how your trademarks appear in sponsored search results.
-
Keep appropriate records. Where potentially relevant advertisements appear, maintaining dated records may be useful.
-
Assess before acting. Not every use of a trademark as a keyword will necessarily amount to infringement; the facts, manner of use and applicable law remain important.
-
Review advertising practices too. Businesses should consider both how competitors may use their marks and how their own teams use third-party trademarks.
-
Keep trademark portfolios current. Periodic review of key registrations remains good brand-management practice.
The Bigger Picture
Whether or not the Division Bench ultimately upholds the ruling in its present form, there are important lessons for both businesses and online intermediaries.
For businesses, the message is straightforward: trademark protection must extend to the digital marketplace. Companies should monitor how their brands are being used as keywords and whether competitors are using them to divert potential customers.
For intermediaries, the position is more nuanced. In our experience advising and representing online platforms, courts increasingly examine the actual role played by the intermediary, whether it merely provides the infrastructure or actively participates in, promotes or monetises the activity in question. Platforms should therefore review their advertising tools, policies and safeguards carefully, particularly where third-party trademarks are involved.
The broader takeaway is that as commerce moves online, both brand owners and intermediaries need to understand where legitimate digital advertising ends and potential trademark liability begins.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
