Google Ads and Trademark Risk : Delhi High Court on Trademark Infringement in Google’s AdWords Programme

6/1/20264 min read

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Hindware Ltd. v. Omkara Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. is likely to become one of the most important Indian judgments on the intersection of trademark law and digital advertising. Decided on 22 May 2026 by Justice Mini Pushkarna, the judgment considers whether Google’s AdWords/Google Ads programme—through which advertisers bid on keywords to trigger sponsored search results—can expose Google itself to direct trademark infringement liability. The Court’s answer was an emphatic yes, at least on the facts before it.

Background:

Hindware filed 2 suits when it discovered that its direct competitors had purchased the plaintiff’s well-known mark as a keyword under Google’s AdWords programme. In one suit, the allegation was that Grohe purchased keyword combinations such as “HINDWARE sanitaryware” and caused its own sponsored result to appear prominently when users searched for the plaintiff’s brand. In the other, Cera and Omkara Infoweb were alleged to have similarly purchased “HINDWARE” and related terms, with the result that Cera’s site appeared as the leading sponsored listing when a consumer searched for the plaintiff’s mark.

Google AdWords Programme

The Court carefully examined how Google’s advertising model operated. AdWords programme is a paid search advertising system through which advertisers may select keywords that trigger their advertisements when users enter corresponding search queries. Advertisers may choose such terms directly or use Google’s Keyword Planner Tool, which suggests relevant keywords and provides search-volume data. The Court also noted that when multiple advertisers seek the same keyword, Google runs a bidding or auction process, and the eventual display of sponsored ads depends on bid values and other factors, including quality and relevance metrics determined through Google’s own systems.

Google’s witness admitted that trademark terms such as “HINDWARE” were available for bidding, that Google did not obtain prior consent from the trademark owner before allowing such bidding, and that Google did not share revenue with the trademark owner when another party successfully bid on the mark. The witness also confirmed that Google earned revenue on a cost-per-click basis, meaning it was paid when the user actually clicked on the sponsored advertisement and reached the advertiser’s website.

Broader Connotation of Advertising

Google had argued that a trademark used only in the backend as a keyword—without appearing visibly in the advertisement—cannot amount to “use” of the mark in law. The Court held that the relevant statutory language is broad and not confined to visible or consumer-facing deployment of the mark. In particular, it relied on following sections:

Section 2(2)(c)(i): any reference to the use of a mark in relation to goods, shall be construed as a reference to the use of the mark upon, or in any physical or in any other relation whatsoever, to such goods
Section 29(6)(d): For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising

Section 2(2)(c)(i), covers use of a mark “in any other relation whatsoever” to goods, and Section 29(6)(d) treats use of a registered mark “in advertising” as actionable use for infringement. The Court stressed that the statute says “in advertising”, not “in an advertisement,” and therefore covers the broader process of advertising, including use of a keyword to trigger a sponsored ad.

The judgment is equally notable for holding that keyword use was not just use by the advertiser but use by Google itself. This conclusion turned on the Court’s understanding of Google’s role as active rather than passive. The Court found that Google did not simply sit back while advertisers independently selected keywords. Google actively suggested terms through the Keyword Planner Tool, including trademarked terms; facilitated an auction when multiple parties sought the same keyword; controlled the eventual display of sponsored listings through proprietary algorithms; and earned money only when the trademark-triggered diversion actually resulted in a click.

Judgement Across the Globe on Keyword Bidding

Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA: Court of Justice of European Union had found that Google itself did not "use" the trademarks in a commercial sense because Google provided a technical advertising service without actively creating the ads for the third-party sellers, it was not directly liable for trademark infringement. However, it held that the third-party sellers can be found liable for infringement for such use of bided keywords.

Similarly, in Interflora Inc. v. Marks & Spencer plc, and L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG, it was held that the service provider does not itself “use” the mark, and that the keyword use should be attributed only to the advertiser.

However, the Delhi High Court expressly considered that line of reasoning, especially the approach in Google France, but said it was unable to subscribe to that view on the facts before it. The reason was that the foreign cases had proceeded on a comparatively passive model of the service provider’s role, whereas the evidence in the present case showed Google actively suggesting, ranking, auctioning and monetising trademarked keywords.

Generic vs. Distinctive Marks

The Court also distinguished the decisions in DRS Logistics and MakeMyTrip. It observed that those matters involved generic or descriptive marks, whereas “HINDWARE” was a coined mark entitled to a much higher degree of protection.

Relief

On relief, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Google LLC and Google India from using “HINDWARE” or any combination thereof as advertising keywords. It also awarded nominal damages of Rs. 15 lakhs in each suit, amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs in total, along with actual litigation costs. While the damages were nominal because no direct quantifiable loss had been established, the award is still significant.

This judgment is a major development in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It does not merely hold that backend keyword use can amount to trademark use. It goes further, holding that where a platform actively suggests, auctions and profits from the use of a third party’s trademark, the platform may itself be liable for infringement.

Way forward for Advertisers

Advertisers should approach keyword bidding with caution, especially where the keyword may be a distinctive or coined trademark rather than a generic or descriptive term. The practical takeaway is straightforward: before bidding on a third party’s mark, advertisers should first assess whether the term is source-specific and strongly associated with one proprietor, because bidding on such marks may expose them to injunctions, damages and litigation risk.

This judgment makes clear that reciprocity is not a legal defence in itself, since the Court observed that “two wrongs do not make a right”. However, some advertisers, especially those managing multiple brands, may commercially consider a reciprocal approach when another trademark owner is already bidding on their mark, and preserving proof of such reciprocal bidding may help frame the broader dispute and support settlement discussions.

Reframe your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss an article.

We care about your data in our privacy policy.