1. Introduction
When a sanitaryware company first complained, more than a decade ago, that searching for its own name on Google threw up advertisements for its rivals, the dispute looked like a niche commercial grievance. On May 22, 2026, that grievance produced one of the most consequential rulings yet on how online advertising must work in India. The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from offering “HINDWARE” and its variants as advertising keywords, and ordered the company to pay ₹30 lakh in nominal damages across the two suits filed by Hindware Limited.
The facts are deceptively simple. Beginning in 2013, Hindware discovered that competitors, including Cera Sanitaryware and, later, plumbing-fixtures maker Grohe, along with web developer Omkara Infoweb, had been buying the “HINDWARE” trademark as a keyword through Google’s Ads programme. The result was that when consumers searched for “Hindware Sanitaryware” or similar terms, sponsored links for rival brands surfaced at the top of the page. The rivals eventually settled, leaving Google as the lone contesting defendant and the real target, since the platform, not the advertiser, designs and profits from the auction.
2. Why the reasoning matters more than the rupees
While the damages granted by court are modest, the principle is not. Google’s central defence was that it is a neutral intermediary that merely “reserves” keywords, and that any trademark use is the advertiser’s doing. The court rejected this squarely. It found that Google plays an active role wherein its “Keyword Planner Tool” suggests trademarked terms to advertisers, it runs the keyword auctions, and it earns revenue every time a user clicks a sponsored link triggered by those keywords. As the judgment put it, Google cannot make available a tool that leads to infringement and then disown responsibility by claiming the tool was not mandatory.
Two further holdings give the ruling real teeth. First, the court held that a trademark need not visibly appear in an advertisement to be “used in advertising” and an “invisible” use of a mark to divert traffic from the proprietor’s site to an advertiser’s still amounts to “use” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Second, by enabling competitors to intercept users at the precise moment they express interest in a brand, Google was found to be taking “unfair advantage” of the distinctive character and repute of a well-known mark. In other words, the goodwill Hindware spent decades building was being auctioned to its rivals without consent.
3. Standing on precedent, not breaking from it
This is not a bolt from the blue, and that is precisely its strength. The ruling builds on a clear line of Delhi High Court authority. In Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (August 2023), a division bench, hearing the dispute over the “Agarwal Packers and Movers” mark held that using trademarks as keywords amounts to “use in advertising” under Section 29(6), that Google is an “active participant” rather than a passive host, and that the safe-harbour protection of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is unavailable once a platform plays an active role.
Crucially, the same bench drew a careful distinction. In the December 2023 MakeMyTrip v. Booking.com appeal, it clarified that there is no per se infringement merely from keyword bidding and what tips the balance is confusion, dilution, or unfair advantage. The Hindware judgment fits neatly into this framework: it does not outlaw all competitor bidding, but it condemns conduct that exploits a well-known mark to divert traffic. By aligning India with globally accepted norms, where platforms already run complaint mechanisms for deceptive ads, the court has built doctrine on solid ground rather than improvising.
4. A healthier ecosystem, not a poorer one
It is tempting to read the verdict as bad news for advertising. Competitor-brand keywords are cheap and convert well. Industry practitioners estimate such clicks cost a fraction of generic category keywords and convert several times better, with some startups drawing a fifth to a third of their paid acquisition from the tactic. A shift toward generic, category, and content-led acquisition will raise customer-acquisition costs for some. But cheap is not the same as fair. The practice the court has curbed is, at its core, free-riding, i.e. capturing demand that another company generated and paid to build.
An ecosystem that rewards investment in brand-building rather than the interception of it is a more durable one. For brand owners, especially well-known marks that are the most attractive targets, the ruling restores a measure of control over their own goodwill and gives them firmer footing to monitor and challenge misuse.
The pressure now falls where it should, i.e. on the platform. Google maintains its policy complies with Indian law and promotes consumer choice. It is likely that it will also appeal against this judgment. However, it is perhaps safe to say that the direction of travel is set. By looking beyond the technical architecture of keyword auctions to their commercial consequences, the Delhi High Court has nudged India’s digital advertising market toward something it has long lacked: accountability for the intermediary that profits most.
Author