Should Google be held liable for trademark infringement if it is allowing another company to use a competitor’s trademark as an advertising keyword? In the case of Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3913, this was the key issue before the Delhi High Court. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that Google’s AdWords programme, which allows businesses to buy competitors’ trademarks as advertising keywords, constitutes trademark infringement. This case is significant as it rules that Google cannot claim protection under the safe harbour provision in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, making it liable for its active and crucial role in such practices.
Hindware Limited is one of India’s most prominent sanitaryware companies. Hindware held a major share of the sanitaryware market and has many retail outlets across India. The trademark “HINDWARE” had been registered in 1991, and in 2017, it was declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court. Over the years, Hindware has built extensive goodwill in the market.
This legal battle began in 2013, when it came to Hindware’s notice that its competitor, Cera Sanitaryware Limited, along with Cera’s website developer, Omkara Infoweb, had bought the keyword “HINDWARE” using Google’s AdWords Programme. Resultantly, whenever users searched for “HINDWARE” on Google, Cera’s website was displayed as a sponsored result at the top, making Hindware appear below it. Following this, in 2014, Hindware discovered that another competitor, Grohe India Pvt. Ltd., had also purchased keywords such as “HINDWARE SANITARY” and “HINDWARE SANITARYWARE INDIA”, causing Grohe’s website to appear on top in the Google search results.
Thereafter, Hindware instituted two distinct suits, one against Grohe and Google, and another against Cera, Omkara Infoweb, and Google. While the suit was going on, Hindware settled its disputes with Grohe, Cera, and Omkara Infoweb, leaving Google India and Google LLC as the sole defendants in the case.
The Delhi High Court was faced with four key issues:
- Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the suits;
- Whether the suits were valid and maintainable against Google since the claims against the advertisers had been settled;
- Whether Google was liable for allowing competitors to bid on the “HINDWARE” trademark as an advertising keyword, which constituted trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999;
- Whether Hindware was entitled to claim damages for trademark infringement.
Hindware argued that the use of its trademark as a keyword by Google was well within the definition of “use” of a mark under Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act. The use of “HINDWARE” to display a competitor’s advertisement was also use “in advertising” under Section 29(6)(d) of the Act. Thus, Google’s conduct constituted infringement under Section 29(8), as it took advantage of Hindware’s trademark and was contrary to honest practices in commercial matters. Hindware brought to the Court’s notice that Google was not merely responsible for running keyword auctions, but also actively recommended trademarked terms to advertisers through its Keyword Planner Tool, and earned revenue whenever a user clicked on the sponsored advertisement. Since this was being done without the permission of the trademark owner, it would be considered infringement.
Google’s Arguments
Google argued that keywords are invisible to users, and therefore buying a trademark as a keyword does not amount to “use” of the trademark. Google argued that “HINDWARE” never appeared in the sponsored advertisement itself; users merely saw the website link of the advertiser. Thus, it argued that since the trademark was invisible, there was no trademark use.
Google added to its argument that the use of such competitive keyword advertising promotes fair competition by offering multiple choices to consumers. It contended that the advertisements were entirely created by the advertisers, while Google was only offering a platform for advertising. Therefore, Google claimed it was an intermediary; hence, it should be entitled to safe harbour protection granted under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Google also contended that its Keyword Planner Tool was an optional tool to identify the best triggering and potential keywords.
In the present case, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Hindware. The Court held that the Delhi High Court rightfully had territorial jurisdiction as Google India carried on business in Delhi and the search results could be accessed there, thereby satisfying Section 20 of the CPC and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Additionally, the Court held that the suits were maintainable against Google even though Hindware had reached settlements with the advertisers. The Court’s rationale behind this was that Google’s own AdWords platform and policies independently offered the HINDWARE trademark as a keyword. The Court further held that the phrase “in any other relation whatsoever” in Section 2(2)(c)(i) of the Trade Marks Act includes invisible or back-end use of a trademark as well, and that using HINDWARE as a keyword constitutes use “in advertising” in accordance with Section 29(6)(d) of the Act.
The Court held that Google’s practice of auctioning Hindware’s trademark to its competitors constituted infringement under Section 29(8), especially as Google was doing it without the consent of the trademark owner and, at the same time, earning revenue through every click. The Delhi High Court rejected Google’s safe harbour defence under Section 79 of the IT Act and held that Google was an active intermediary because it actively operated the keyword auction programme and intentionally offered trademarked terms through its Keyword Planner Tool. In this case, the Court clarified that safe harbour protection is available only to genuinely passive intermediaries who do not play any commercial role. Although Hindware failed to produce proper evidence of its actual losses, the Court awarded nominal damages of Rs. 30 lakhs (Rs. 15 lakhs in each suit), jointly payable by Google India and Google LLC, along with litigation costs. In reaching these conclusions, the Court relied on key precedents such as Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., which held that the use of a trademark as a keyword constitutes use “in advertising” under Section 29. Further, the Court cited Bloomberg Finance LP v. Prafull Saklecha, in which it was held that “unfair advantage” under Section 29(8) constitutes free-riding on the goodwill of someone else’s trademark by monetising the reputation and pulling power of the HINDWARE mark without the consent of the rightful owner.
This case of Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. becomes significant and crucial as it settles and clarifies that a search engine like Google, which allows competitors to purchase and bid on a registered trademark as a keyword, earns revenue from each click, and actively participates in the process through its own tools, is thereby an infringer and not a passive intermediary. The judgment sends a clear message that the commercial exploitation of someone’s registered trademark cannot escape the scrutiny of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
