Beyond the Visible Mark: Delhi High Court's Hindware v. Google and the Future of Digital Trademark Law

Introduction : Have you ever wondered what you would do if someone searching for your brand on Google ended up on your competitor's website? How would you react to it ? And it is actually happening. Hindware, a well-known manufacturer of sanitaryware and bathroom fittings, discovered that users searching for its brand name were being redirected to competitors through Google advertisements. But the question before all of us is how would it really happen? When the brand wants Google to show their brand when the users use certain keywords for search, they pay Google for advertisement and that’s exactly what has happened here. Competitors paid Google. But the question is, “Is it legal? Delhi High court’s judgement of 22 May 2026 fills the long standing gap in India’s trademark law by recognizing that it doesn’t require infringement in the digital age to be visible to be real.

What is Google Advertising?

Google’s advertising is a paid advertising of a user’s product , it primarily aims to get more traffic on the user's website. It is generally called Google Ads. It helps businesses to reach more people and sell their products and services. Google ads create a huge impact on any business, users can control their budget on ads, in which area their ads should be displayed and how much reach they want. The next question therefore is how it actually works, does it suggest other users on anything they search?  No, users select the keywords or phrase that describes their business or products, and it specifies where and when your ads appear. When the user searches on Google somewhat similar to your phrase or keyword the ad is displayed on that. Multiple users compete on similar words and one who bids higher wins the bid. Bid generally operates through pay-per-click, every time the user clicks on your ad you have to pay for that.

This was exactly what happened with the Hindware, its competitors purchased  the word Hindware as their keyword and ensured every time the user searches Hindware people land on their website instead. Now the question that naturally comes is  whether such use of another's trademark as a keyword amounts to infringement under Indian law.

What Really Happened : The case facts

 Hindware is a brand established in 1960, by the Somany Group in partnership with Twyfords Ltd. UK, aiming to bring vitreous china ceramic sanitaryware to India.A pioneer in India's sanitaryware industry for over six decades. Hindware is a coined name and  got recognition by making toilets, washbasins, faucets, bathtubs, showers and  premium bathroom fittings.

In 2013 Hindware came to know that  Cera Sanitaryware along with their website developer Omkara Infoweb were purchasing the trademark ‘HINDWARE’ as a keyword  through Google ads. Just after  a year in October 2014 Hindware found that Grohe had also bought the trademark as a keyword. Two lawsuits were filed, first in 2013 against Google and Cera Sanitaryware along with their website developer Omkara Infoweb and the second was against Grohe and Google in 2014. During proceedings Cera Sanitary, Omkara Infoweb and Grohe settled with Hindware and Google remained the sole defendant after the other parties settled.

The Delhi court on May 22 2026 permanently restrained Google and Google India from using "HINDWARE," "HINDWARE SANITARYWARE," "HINDWARE SANITARY," "HINDWARE SANITARYWARE INDIA," or related combinations as advertising keywords. Further court also charged nominal damages of ₹15 lakhs in each suit, totalling ₹30 lakhs for both suits and should be paid within 8 weeks by Google LLC and Google India.

Google's primary defence was that it was entitled to safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 but the court rejected this. Google also argued that the keywords are invisible backend triggers and cannot be interpreted as use in advertising, the court rejected this too.

The case took almost 10 years to resolve, reflecting how unsettled the law on keyword advertising and trademark infringement had been in India.

The Court’s Reasoning:

This judgment's reasoning was significant in reshaping the trademark law in India.

Google as an Active participant: The judgement establishes that Google uses Keyword Planner Tool that actively suggests trademarked terms including HINDWARE to advertisers as High-value keywords. Google also makes auctions/bidding on those keywords based on Cost-per-click so when a user searches for those keywords they land on advertised websites. The Court rejected the Google argument that it "merely reserves" keywords, stating that it is used for commercial purposes in the course of trade.

The significance of this was that the court looked beyond Google’s technical framing, looking towards its commercial reality, not what Google was claiming to be “we’re just tools”. Also Google design suggests and gets profit from the trademarked terms , this shifts the focus from "does Google display the mark" to "does Google commercially exploit the mark" the more realistic standard for Digital Platform.

Google got Unfair Advantage under Section 29(8): The court further held that HINDWARE is a coined term and it has no dictionary meaning so anyone searching for the word HINDWARE is specifically looking for Hindware brand. By selling the term to direct competitors without Hindware’s consent and without sharing profits Google has misappropriated HINDWARE’s goodwill to benefit the rivals. And Google's conduct does not amount to “honest practice in industrial or commercial matters” under section 29(8) and section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Google also argued  that Hindware itself had bid on a competitor's mark ("CERA") it also got rejected, the court held this was a separate dispute, and that "two wrongs do not make a right."

This is where the Court’s reasoning becomes particularly interesting as it doesn’t focus on the customers confusion, the traditional trademark test but it focuses on the unfairness to the trademark owner.This also shows that the main concern is not that the customers are deceived but the Hindware’s brand recognition is monetised by the Google and given to competitors without giving any returns to HINDWARE. And this shifts focus from a confusion-based to a goodwill-exploitation-based understanding of infringement.

Rejection of Defence Under section 79 of IT Act: Google sought the defence under section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act 2000, arguing it is merely an intermediary and therefore protected by safe harbour under section 79 of IT Act . The court rejected the argument on precise grounds, Section 79(1) protection applies only to "making available or hosting third-party information, data, or communication link”, and it does not extend to other actions. By doing auction/bidding and selling the Hindware’s trademark as a keyword to a direct competitor, the court held that it is a separate commercial action which falls outside the scope of section 79(1) altogether.

It is important to distinguish this case from Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., where a debate was seen on Amazon as an "active" or "passive" intermediary. Here the court did not need to determine whether Google is an "active" or "passive" intermediary. Instead, the court found that auctioning and selling a trademark as a keyword simply isn't the kind of activity Section 79 was designed to protect in the first place, regardless of Google’s other functions. This narrows the scope of protection given to online platforms when they earn money through the use of another person's or company's trademark.

Why this Judgement Matters:

For Brand Owners : This judgement has made the protection stronger for the brand owners as backend/invisible use of a trademark is now legally actionable in India. It has  specifically strengthened the protection for the brands such as HINDWARE, whose names are coined and have no dictionary/independent meaning. Now brand owners can challenge and monitor keyword-based diversion, not just visible copying something that was previously left in a legal grey area.

For Google and other Platforms : It narrows the scope of safe harbour defence specifically for monetised use of trademarks for Google and other platforms. So platforms need to rethink how their Keyword Planner Tools suggest and auction registered trademarks or to restrict Keyword Planner Tool suggestions involving registered trademarks. Since, the platforms using automation/algorithmic processes and making profit from them does not automatically protect it from legal responsibility when it earns money from that activity.

For Indian Digital Advertising Law Generally : More broadly, it sets a precedent where other High Courts may apply when dealing with similar cases and follow the reasoning. It also moves India to a stricter standard than the older EU’s position adopted on Google France SARL v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA which the Delhi High Court expressly distinguished from in its reasoning. Most importantly, it shows that Indian Courts are willing to interpret trademark and IT laws drafted decades ago, long before keyword advertising existed in a flexible manner that responds to the realities of the digital economy today when dealing with emerging technological issues.

Ultimately, the judgment is not merely about Hindware or Google, it is about defining the limits of commercial conduct in an increasingly algorithm-driven marketplace.

Conclusion

Now, coming back to where we started, next time searching for your favourite brand on Google and landing on someone else’s page it may not feel like a big deal. But as the Delhi High Court has now held, this issue should not be dismissed as merely an odd or unavoidable feature of internet technology. What matters is whether another's goodwill is commercially exploited without authorization, and platforms that profit from such exploitation may be held legally accountable. 

For over a decade this question went unanswered. Now, at least in India it has an answer in the digital age that infringement does not need to be seen to be real, it only needs to be proven. More importantly, the Hindware judgment demonstrates that Indian courts are prepared to adapt traditional legal principles to emerging technologies, ensuring that the law keeps pace with the realities of the digital marketplace.

Author: Pranav Ankush Jadhav in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney