Court Holds Use of Registered Trademark as Keyword in Google AdWords Policy Constitutes Trademark Infringement under Section 29(8) of Trade Marks Act, 1999; Google Not Entitled to Safe Harbour under IT Act
In a landmark judgment dated May 22, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, delivered a detailed verdict in the dispute between Hindware Ltd. and Google LLC & Ors., concerning the unauthorized use of the registered trademark ‘Hindware’ as a keyword on Google’s AdWords advertising platform. The court held that Google’s practice of auctioning the trademark ‘Hindware’ to competitors as a keyword without consent from the trademark owner amounts to infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The plaintiff, Hindware Ltd., which holds exclusive rights and long-standing goodwill in the ‘Hindware’ trademark since 1991, accused Google and its advertisers, including Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. and Cera Sanitaryware Ltd., of misappropriating its trademark by allowing its use as keywords in Google’s paid advertising program to divert consumer traffic to competitors’ websites. Hindware Ltd. presented extensive evidence of its market presence, including sales exceeding Rs. 500 crore in 2011-12 and significant advertising expenditure, establishing the trademark as a coined and well-known mark with substantial goodwill.
The court examined Google’s AdWords Program, noting that it involves an auction process whereby advertisers bid for keywords, including registered trademarks. Google actively suggests popular and trademarked terms using its Keyword Planner Tool and monetizes the use of such trademarks by charging advertisers on a pay-per-click basis. Despite having the ability to restrict trademark use, Google’s Indian policy post-2009 does not prohibit the use of trademarked terms as keywords and does not seek prior consent from trademark owners.
Rejecting Google’s claim that use of the trademark as a keyword is imperceptible to the consumer and hence not “use” under the Trade Marks Act, the court referred to Sections 2(2)(c)(i) and 29(6)(d) of the Act. It held that “use” includes use in any relation whatsoever to goods and “use in advertising” encompasses the process of advertising, including use as keywords to trigger advertisements, even if not visually perceptible. The court distinguished this from mere internal use and emphasized Google’s active role in promoting and selling trademarked keywords to competitors, thereby using the mark commercially.
The court further held that Google’s conduct takes unfair advantage of the plaintiff’s trademark by free-riding on its reputation and goodwill, contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. It ruled that auctioning the plaintiff’s registered trademark to competitors for advertising purposes constitutes infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act.
Addressing Google’s defence under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides safe harbour protection to intermediaries, the court found it inapplicable. Google does not merely provide access but actively selects recipients of advertisements and monetizes the use of trademarks, failing to exercise requisite due diligence and thus losing safe harbour immunity.
While the plaintiff could not provide direct proof of damages from Google’s infringement, the court awarded nominal damages of Rs. 30,00,000 jointly and severally against Google LLC and Google India Pvt. Ltd. The court emphasized that nominal damages serve to affirm the plaintiff’s rights in the face of clear infringement. Additionally, the plaintiff was held entitled to actual costs of litigation in accordance with the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.
The judgment also discussed and rejected Google’s analogies comparing keyword bidding to brick-and-mortar advertising practices, clarifying that auctioning a trademark as a keyword to competitors without consent is an unjust enrichment and harms the advertising and investment functions of the trademark.
This decision reaffirms the protection accorded to registered trademarks in the digital advertising space and clarifies that search engines cannot commercialize trademarked terms without authorization, thereby safeguarding trademark owners’ rights in the era of online advertising.
Bottom Line:
Use of registered trademarks as keywords in Google AdWords constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it amounts to unfair advantage and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 2(1)(zb), 2(2)(c)(i), 28, 29(6), 29(8), 30(1), 30(2)(a), 35; Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 79; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sections 20, Order XXIX Rule 1; Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 Rule 35
Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904755
