Google has challenged a Single Judge’s trademark ruling before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The appeal centres on Google keyword advertising trademark infringement Delhi High Court and argues that penalising keyword bidding harms digital competition. The company also claims the ruling departs from settled Indian law and makes India a global outlier on online advertising.
Google Appeals Single Judge’s Trademark Ruling
Google has filed a 4,761-page appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to overturn the judgment. The appeal challenges the finding that Google committed trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to bid on competitors’ registered trademarks as keywords.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet P. S. Arora will hear the appeal. Google argues that the judgment creates a unique legal standard for online advertising and conflicts with existing Indian jurisprudence.
Background of the Hindware Dispute
The dispute began between 2013 and 2014 when Hindware Limited (now under Somany Home Innovation Ltd.) filed a trademark suit against Google, Cera Sanitaryware, and Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. The company alleged that its competitors purchased the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword on the Google Ads platform.
According to Hindware, users searching for its trademark saw sponsored advertisements for competing brands. The company argued that this practice diverted customers and exploited its goodwill.
Although Hindware later settled with Cera and Grohe, it continued its case against Google. It alleged that Google actively facilitated and profited from unauthorised trademark use.
Single Judge Held Google Liable
On 22 May 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled against Google. The Court held that digital platforms cannot avoid liability after creating and profiting from systems that enable trademark infringement.
The Court permanently restrained Google from offering “HINDWARE” or deceptively similar marks as bidding keywords. It also directed Google to pay ₹30 lakh as nominal damages along with litigation costs.
Court’s Interpretation of the Trade Marks Act
Google argued that keywords remain invisible to internet users and serve only as backend technical triggers. Therefore, it claimed keyword bidding does not amount to trademark use.
The Court rejected this argument. It interpreted Section 29(6)(d) along with Section 2(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and held that a trademark need not appear in an advertisement to qualify as “use in advertising.”
The Court further observed that using a protected trademark to trigger competing advertisements amounts to infringement. Since “HINDWARE” is a coined trademark, the Court held that Google’s conduct also violated Section 29(8) by harming the mark’s distinctive character.
Safe Harbour Defence Rejected
Google also claimed protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It argued that it merely provides a neutral advertising platform while advertisers independently choose keywords.
The Court disagreed. It found that Google exercises substantial control over its advertising ecosystem. It referred to Google’s Keyword Planner, which recommends competitor trademarks, and noted that Google earns revenue from keyword auctions.
Based on these findings, the Court held that Google actively participated in the advertising process and could not claim safe harbour protection.
Google Raises Concerns Before Division Bench
In its appeal, Google argues that the Google keyword advertising trademark infringement Delhi High Court ruling could negatively affect digital competition, consumer choice, and online advertising.
The company says the judgment effectively grants trademark owners exclusive control over keyword advertising. According to Google, such an approach limits consumer access to competing products and services.
Google also challenges the Court’s distinction between coined and generic trademarks. It argues that the Trade Marks Act does not recognise such a distinction for keyword bidding.
Further, Google relies on the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in MakeMyTrip v. Booking.com (2023). That judgment held that backend keyword bidding does not automatically deceive consumers or amount to trademark infringement.
While pursuing the appeal, Google has confirmed that it complied with the keyword-blocking directions issued in this case. However, it has not changed its broader global advertising policies.
