On 22 May 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court held Google liable for trademark infringement for allowing competitors to bid on "HINDWARE" as a Google Ads keyword, awarded ₹30 lakh in nominal damages (about $31,600), and permanently restrained Google from auctioning the HINDWARE marks. The headline reading "India has banned Google Ads keyword bidding on trademarks" is wrong. The narrower and more useful reading is that the court extended the 2023 DRS Logistics framework, denied Google the Section 79 IT Act safe-harbour because it actively runs the auction and suggests trademarked terms, and signalled that brand owners in India now have a real legal route to stop rivals from buying their marks as keywords. The injunction itself is specific to HINDWARE. The doctrine reaches further. Google is expected to appeal.

Keyword Bidding explained:

First we understand how Google Ads works: businesses "bid" money on specific search words (eg “water heater") so that when someone searches that word, their ad shows up. It's like an auction, whoever bids highest (combined with ad quality) usually gets the top ad spot. The tricky legal part in cases like Hindware v. Google is when one company bids on a rival's trademarked name as a keyword, so their ad pops up even when a user searches for the competitor's brand - that's where trademark infringement questions come in.

The Crux of the HINDWARE case:

In 2013, Hindware (the sanitaryware brand, suing through its predecessor HSIL and later Brilloca Ltd) discovered that rival Cera Sanitaryware and a website developer called Omkara Infoweb were buying HINDWARE as a Google AdWords keyword. When buyers searched for Hindware, Cera's sponsored result appeared on top. In October 2014, Hindware found that plumbing fixtures maker Grohe had also bought the keyword. Hindware filed two commercial suits in the Delhi High Court - one against Cera/Omkara, one against Grohe - joining Google India and Google LLC as defendants. Over the next twelve years, Grohe, Cera and Omkara settled and decrees were passed against them. Google contested all the way to judgment. Justice Pushkarna's 163-page ruling on 22 May 2026, as confirmed via the judgment PDF on the Delhi HC website, found Google liable, awarded ₹15 lakh in each suit (₹30 lakh total, payable in 8 weeks), and permanently restrained Google from using HINDWARE or listed variations as advertising keywords.

Key takeaways:

A brief overview of the earlier decisions that shaped the intermediary liability landscape, together with our comments on how Hindware decision has altered the accepted understanding of intermediaries as neutral parties.

I. In Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), the decision recognised broad safe-harbour protection for intermediaries acting as neutral conduits. In Hindware, the Court examined whether Google could claim that status at all. By emphasising Google’s active role in the AdWords ecosystem, the Court suggested that intermediary protection becomes increasingly difficult to justify where a platform actively facilitates and profits from the impugned activity.

II. In Kent RO Systems vs. Amit Kotak (2017), The Court was hesitant to treat invisible use of a trademark as a keyword as constituting trademark infringement, particularly where the mark was not visibly displayed to consumers. The emphasis remained on the traditional understanding of trademark use as something perceptible to the public. In Hindware, the Court departed from this reasoning by recognising that trademark exploitation in the digital environment often occurs through invisible technological mechanisms. The Court accepted that a trademark may be commercially exploited even when it is used solely as a backend trigger for advertisements. The decision, therefore, moves beyond the visible-versus-invisible distinction and focuses instead on the commercial function performed by the keyword.

III. In Christian Louboutin SAS vs Nakul Bajaj (2018), the Delhi High Court held that an e-commerce platform could not claim intermediary protection where it played an active role in promoting, advertising, and facilitating the sale of infringing products. The Court distinguished passive hosting and active participation. In Hindware, this principle is effectively transposed from e-commerce marketplaces to digital advertising platforms. The Court applied the same “active role” analysis to Google’s AdWords ecosystem and examined whether Google’s involvement extended beyond merely providing technological infrastructure. After analysing Google’s participation in the AdWords Program, the Court found Google to be an active participant, thereby suggesting that active exploitation of trademark value may attract liability even where the platform itself is not the direct seller of goods.

IV. In Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Google LLC (2022), following the principle of trademarks being visible to the public and causing confusion, the decision held that invisible keyword bidding would not amount to “use” in trade. In Hindware, the Court consciously moves away from this approach. It treats invisible keyword triggers as a form of trademark use because they perform an important commercial function. The court opined that they direct consumers searching for a particular brand towards competing products and services. The Court therefore shifted attention away from the visibility of the mark and towards the economic reality of how keyword advertising operates. It further places emphasis on the fact that in Hindware, the keyword auctioned being a coined term and judicially recognised as a well-known mark. The court relying on strength of the mark held it deserved higher protection.

Impact:
Brand owners in India can now sue Google/ad platforms directly if competitors buy their trademark as a keyword, not just the advertiser. Google's usual "we're just an intermediary" defence is weakened when it actively suggests/sells trademarked keywords.The ruling is technically specific to HINDWARE (not a blanket ban on all keyword bidding), but the reasoning sets a strong precedent other trademark owners can rely on. Advertisers and platforms should expect more infringement claims over branded keyword bidding, and Google is expected to appeal - so the final word isn't settled yet.

Conclusion:
Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors represents a significant development in Indian trademark law. It establishes, for the first time in a final determination rather than an interlocutory finding that keyword constitutes "use in advertising" under the Trade Marks Act 1999, and that search platforms which actively operate and profit from keyword auctions are not entitled to safe harbour immunity. Brand owners now possess a direct legal mechanism to proceed against platforms themselves, rather than being limited to actions against individual advertisers.

By HSILF Team