Google’s Paid Auction of Trademark Keywords – Illegal
the Judgment dated 22.5.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in CS (COMM) 591 of 2017 Hindware Ltd Vs. Grohe India Pvt Limited and others with connected matters
Google India and Google LLC run the Google AdWords paid program which is a key word advertising service on their search engine.
It is a commercial venture to monetise the use of the search engine for advertisement on the Search Engine Results Page.
The AdWords service enables commercial entities, by means of reservation of one or more words/ keywords, which could be any word, including, the brand names of its competitors, to obtain an advertising link to its site when an internet user enters one or more of the keywords into a search request.
Grohe and Cera are similar business of Hindware and had purchased Google Adwords Program rights on the website of Google for the plaintiff’s mark HINDWARE or related words.
In this regard, it is to be noted that under Section 79(1) of the IT Act, an intermediary is not liable for any third-party information, data or communication link available or hosted by it, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 79 of the IT Act. Thus, the protection/exemption envisaged under Section 79(1) of the IT Act for intermediaries is limited to only making available or hosting third-party information, data, or communication link by the intermediary, and does not extend to other actions of the intermediary. Therefore, the action of Google in conducting auction and selling the use of the plaintiff’s trademark as a keyword to direct competitors are not exempted under Section 79(1) of the IT Act.
Grohe and Cera have settled the disputes and decrees have been passed.
In the suits against Google,
In terms of the AdWords Policy of Google, as applicable in India, Google itself did not allow a trademark to be used as a keyword till the year 2009, and later changed its policy in 2015 to the effect that Google would not investigate or restrict use of trademarked terms in keywords. Further, the policy applicable in India is a deviation from the policy of Google followed for countries in European Union (“EU”) and European Free Trade Association (“EUFTA”), which provides a higher duty of care in a jurisdiction where majority of the population comprises of “internet literate” people, and such a policy ought to be followed in India as well.
- it is clear that the conduct of Google in using the trademark of the plaintiff as a keyword, amounts to unfair advantage of the advertising of the plaintiff’s trademark, and is contrary to honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. Thus, the action of Google amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark “HINDWARE” under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act.
- Thus, Google has illegally and unauthorisedly used and infringed the registered trademark of the plaintiff, ‘HINDWARE’, being a coined word and having no dictionary meaning. Google being an active proponent for use of the trademark of the plaintiff, by selling the registered trademark of the plaintiff as a keyword to the direct competitors of the plaintiff, has infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademark. By selling trademark as a keyword, the intent of Google is clearly to ride on the coattails of the reputation and goodwill in the registered trademark of the plaintiff.
