For more than a decade, Google’s advertising business has operated on a simple premise: sell keywords to the highest bidder, including competitors’ trademarked brand names. On May 22, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling that challenges this practice at its core, declaring that selling a company’s registered trademark as a keyword for rival advertisements constitutes trademark infringement. The decision, delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna in a 163-page judgment, orders Google to pay 3 million Indian rupees (approximately 5 million yen or $36,000 USD) in damages and imposes a permanent injunction against the use of Hindware’s trademark and its variants as advertising keywords.
The 13-Year Legal Battle That Brought Google to Account
The origins of this case date back to 2013, when Hindware, a major Indian sanitaryware manufacturer founded in 1960, discovered that its competitors Grohe India and Cera Sanitaryware were purchasing the keyword “Hindware” through Google’s AdWords program. When users searched for “Hindware,” the competitors’ advertisements appeared prominently above Hindware’s own organic search results, effectively diverting potential customers before they could reach the brand they were looking for.
Hindware reached settlements with both competitors but continued its legal action against Google, arguing that the company providing the mechanism for such keyword sales bore direct responsibility under trademark law. The case wound through the Indian legal system for 13 years before the Delhi High Court finally ruled decisively against Google’s position.
Why an “Invisible Keyword” Can Still Infringe Trademark Rights
Google’s primary defense rested on a technical argument: keywords operate behind the scenes, invisible to users, and therefore cannot constitute “use” of a trademark within the legal meaning of the term. The company argued that since Hindware’s trademark never appeared on users’ screens as part of the advertising process, no infringement had occurred.
Justice Pushkarna rejected this reasoning outright. The court held that using a trademark as a hidden trigger to display an advertisement qualifies as “use in advertising” under Indian trademark law, even when the mark itself is not physically visible in the ad copy. The ruling further stated that Google’s practice of selling a registered trademark to competitors and profiting from those sales constituted an unauthorized commercial exploitation of the brand’s “drawing power.” Google was found to be directly infringing Hindware’s trademark rights alongside the advertisers who purchased the keywords.
Google also attempted to invoke India’s Information Technology Act, Section 79, which provides safe harbor protection for intermediaries. The court rejected this defense as well, determining that Google is not a passive intermediary. The company actively selects where ads appear through algorithmic processes and generates revenue from those placements. This active involvement disqualifies Google from the safe harbor protections that apply to neutral platforms.
The Deeper Anger: “We Built the Brand — Why Should We Pay for It?”
The ruling has resonated powerfully across India’s business community, particularly among founders and entrepreneurs who have experienced this dynamic firsthand. Nithin Kamath, the founder of India’s largest online brokerage Zerodha, publicly stated that his company has suffered from the same problem for over a decade. He described conducting a search for “Zerodha” only to see a competitor’s advertisement occupying the most prominent position on the page.
Sridhar Vembu, co-founder of software giant Zoho, went further, describing Google’s conduct as “completely unethical” and welcoming the court’s finding of infringement. The frustration these business leaders express is rooted in a structural unfairness that transcends borders. A company invests time, money, and creative energy into building a brand. When a customer searches for that brand, a competitor’s ad appears at the top of the results. That competitor purchased the brand name as a keyword through Google. The only way for the brand owner to stop this is to pay Google for the right to appear against its own trademark.
This creates what many describe as a “tax on your own brand” — a system where trademark holders must bid against competitors to show up in searches for their own company names. The Delhi High Court ruling directly challenges this business logic by treating keyword sales as a form of trademark use rather than a neutral service.
A Modest Damages Award With Far-Reaching Implications
The 3 million rupee damages award represents a trivial sum for Google, but the significance of this ruling lies elsewhere. The permanent injunction against using Hindware’s trademark and its variants as keywords carries substantial weight. The court’s finding that invisible keyword triggers constitute trademark use applies logically not only to Hindware but to all registered trademarks under Indian law.
Legal experts have offered measured assessments of the ruling’s scope. Aprajita Rana, a partner at Indian law firm AZB & Partners, noted that the decision does not create “broad impact” across all online platforms. Indian courts have already established that platforms lose legal protection when they actively participate in unlawful activities. However, Rana emphasized that the court’s recognition of keyword provision — even though invisible to consumers — as a participatory rather than passive act represents a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence.
Under current practice in India, trademark owners could previously object only when a competitor used their mark within the visible text of an advertisement. This ruling extends protection to the keyword triggers themselves, closing a loophole that brand owners have long considered exploitative.
Global Context and Future Implications for Keyword Advertising
The Delhi High Court decision exists within a complex international legal landscape. Courts in different jurisdictions have reached varying conclusions about whether keyword advertising constitutes trademark infringement. European courts have generally taken a more permissive approach, while some U.S. rulings have found liability under specific circumstances. The Indian ruling does not directly bind courts in other countries, but it adds weight to the argument that invisible keyword triggers can constitute trademark use — a position that brand owners worldwide have advocated for years.
In Japan and other major markets, current practice allows trademark owners to object only when a competitor uses the mark within the visible advertisement text. The use of trademarks as invisible keywords remains permitted. The Delhi High Court’s reasoning challenges this distinction and may influence legal thinking in jurisdictions where the issue remains unsettled.
Google has responded to the ruling by stating that its policies prohibit competitors from using trademarks in advertisement copy, and that these policies comply with Indian law and operate consistently with global standards. The company did not announce any change to its keyword sales practices, suggesting that it may pursue an appeal.
What the Ruling Means for Businesses Using Google Ads
For businesses operating in India, the immediate practical effect of this ruling is limited but potentially transformative. The Delhi High Court has created a precedent that a trademark owner can seek an injunction against Google itself for selling its trademark as a keyword to competitors. This shifts the enforcement burden. Previously, brand owners had to pursue individual competitors who purchased keywords. Now, they can target the platform that enables the practice.
Companies should consider reviewing their trademark registrations in light of this ruling. Registered trademarks receive stronger protection, and brand owners may wish to ensure their marks are properly registered in all relevant classes. Businesses that have experienced competitor ad placements against their brand names should document these instances and consult with legal counsel about potential claims.
The ruling also raises strategic questions about advertising budgets. Many companies currently feel compelled to bid on their own brand names as defensive keywords — a practice the court has now characterized as stemming from an infringing system. If the ruling survives appeal, it could fundamentally alter the economics of search advertising for brand owners.
A Turning Point for Platform Accountability
The Delhi High Court’s decision represents more than a victory for one Indian sanitaryware manufacturer. It challenges the foundational assumption that search platforms should profit from selling one company’s brand equity to another company. By classifying Google’s keyword sales as active participation in infringement rather than neutral intermediation, the court has drawn a line that could reshape advertising practices across the industry.
The 3 million rupee penalty is not the story. The story is the legal reasoning that makes invisible keyword triggers visible under trademark law. That reasoning, if upheld, threatens a revenue model that generates billions of dollars annually for Google and other search platforms. It also provides brand owners with a powerful new tool to protect the value they create — without having to pay for the right to appear in searches for their own names. The consequences of this decision will take years to fully unfold, but the trajectory is now clear: the era of unquestioned keyword monetization of another company’s trademark may be drawing to a close.
