The Delhi High Court's division bench on Friday declined to grant interim relief to Google in its appeal against the landmark single-judge ruling that held the company liable for trademark infringement through its Google Ads platform. The division bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the parties to file their written submissions and listed the matter for final disposal on July 24. As reported by Business Standard, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Google, submitted that the matter 'cries out' for notice and interim protection, arguing that the issue involved whether using someone's trademark simply as a search trigger would amount to per se infringement. The court noted that while there was no admitted finding of confusion in the single-judge ruling, it appeared there was confusion and remained open-minded about the matter.
A spokesperson for the company stated that they are appealing the Delhi High Court's order, which diverges from established legal precedents in India. As reported by Mint, the company's ads policies reflect standard practices that enable competition and give consumers more choices. In its appeal, Google has argued that the ruling would make India the 'sole outlier' among major jurisdictions in its treatment of keyword advertising, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the digital advertising ecosystem. The company generated ₹3,30,000 crore ($4.1 billion) in gross advertising revenue last year but is also dealing with multiple antitrust cases and legal disputes in India. The court also directed Google to pay ₹27 lakh in damages and litigation costs. In its extensive appeal, Google vehemently rejects the position that it is facilitating trademark infringement, instead claiming that restricting keyword bidding will trigger a negative domino effect across competitive markets.
Earlier this year, in May, a single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held Google liable for allowing sanitaryware rivals of Hindware to bid on and use the trademark 'HINDWARE' as keywords under its Google Ads programme. According to Mint, Justice Pushkarna said that Google's conduct in allowing competitors to use 'HINDWARE' as a keyword amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act. The single-judge Bench also reasoned that unlike other cases where the company names were very generic and therefore keyword bidding could be allowed, 'HINDWARE' was a name coined by the company and therefore constituted an infringement under the Trade Marks Act. In the May ruling, Justice Pushkarna stated that Google could not be allowed to escape accountability for providing a tool that causes trademark infringement, saying 'Google has attempted to sell something that it simply does not own'. The court also restrained Google from permitting the use of the 'HINDWARE' trademark and its variations as advertising keywords. The Delhi High Court ruled against Google in the case, ordering it to pay damages of $31,600 and other litigation costs.
The ruling could significantly reshape India's online advertising landscape, as reported by Reuters. Google argues that preventing advertisers from bidding on competitors' trademarks would reduce consumer choice, citing research suggesting users often search for specific brands not only to find company products but also to compare alternatives before making purchases. The company contends that granting trademark owners exclusive control over advertising triggered by their brand names would effectively create a monopoly over that search space. Today, businesses routinely bid on competitors' brand names as keywords to reach potential customers comparing products, and restricting this practice could increase advertising costs for challengers while making it easier for established brands to dominate search results. Indian matchmaking service Shaadi.com has indicated that the ruling would change the economics of online ads for millions of businesses that were suffering when their competitors bid on their name and Google took a fee. Tech industry experts and local businesses are closely monitoring the case as it could set an important precedent on the extent to which digital platforms can permit, auction and monetize trademarked search terms while balancing trademark rights with competition in online advertising.
The dispute dates back to 2013-14, when sanitaryware manufacturer Hindware Ltd sued Google along with rival companies Cera and Grohe, alleging that the competitors had purchased the registered trademark 'HINDWARE' as a keyword on Google's advertising platform. According to Mint, the company subsequently settled its disputes with Cera and Grohe but continued pursuing its claims against Google, arguing that the company facilitated and monetized the unauthorized use of its trademark by auctioning it as an advertising keyword. The appeal is expected to be closely watched as it could set an important precedent on the extent to which digital platforms can permit, auction and monetize trademarked search terms while balancing trademark rights with competition in online advertising. In its 4,761-page challenge, Google has rejected the position that it has infringed on trademarks, arguing that 'a keyword is merely used as an internal and backend trigger to display an ad' and is simply 'making advertising space available'. The judgment marked a significant departure from Google's long-standing position that advertisers, and not the platform, are responsible for keyword selection.
