Delhi High Court finds Google liable in Hindware trademark dispute

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Google is liable for trademark infringement in a dispute involving bathroom fittings manufacturer Hindware, rejecting the tech giant’s claim that it acted merely as a passive intermediary. Delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna on May 22, the 163-page judgment determined that Google’s AdWords platform actively participated in the infringement by allowing competitors to use the 'Hindware' trademark as a keyword to target users searching for the brand.

The court awarded ₹3 million (approximately $31,600) in nominal damages to Hindware, citing Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects the right to exclusive use of a trademark. Justice Pushkarna stated that by selling the plaintiff’s trademark as a keyword without authorisation for commercial gain, Google had infringed upon the company’s exclusive rights. The ruling underscores the legal distinction in India between passive hosting and active participation in unlawful activity, a precedent that has previously been established for internet companies.

The decision has drawn significant attention from the Indian technology sector, with prominent entrepreneurs publicly backing the verdict. Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath and Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu highlighted long-standing grievances regarding the diversion of traffic from established brands to competitors via Google’s advertising tools. Kamath noted that Zerodha has faced this issue for over a decade, observing that search results for their brand often lead to competitor ads rather than the intended destination.

In response to the judgment, Google affirmed that its global Ads policy prohibits competitor advertisers from using trademarked terms in ad text. A spokesperson for the company stated that it is committed to aligning its operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining strict standards to protect users’ long-term interests. The ruling carries particular weight in India, which represents a key market for Google with the second-largest number of internet users globally.

Legal experts suggest that while the judgment may require platforms to review their automated ad curation processes, the broader impact on platform liability in India remains limited. Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, noted that the decision highlights how providing access to trademarked terms can amount to participative activity, even if the curation process is not visible to customers. However, she indicated that the implications for online platforms’ liability are narrower than public reaction might suggest.