ETtech Explainer: Why Google was fined Rs 30 lakh in Hindware trademark case
The Delhi High Court has directed tech major Google to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages after holding the company liable for trademark infringement in a long-running dispute with sanitaryware maker Hindware.
In a judgment delivered on May 22, Justice Mini Pushkarna permanently restrained Google from allowing the use of “HINDWARE” and related variants as advertising keywords within its AdWords ecosystem. The court also ordered Google to bear the actual litigation costs.
The dispute arose from two commercial suits filed by Hindware, then known as HSIL Ltd, during 2013 and 2014, against Google entities, Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware, and Omkara Infoweb.
What Hindware alleged
Hindware claimed that rival sanitaryware companies were purchasing its registered trademark “HINDWARE” and similar keyword combinations through Google’s advertising platform. As a result, ads for competing brands allegedly appeared prominently whenever users searched for Hindware products online.
The company argued that this diverted potential customers searching specifically for Hindware products and unfairly exploited the goodwill attached to its brand, which has previously been recognised by the Delhi High Court as a well-known trademark. It traced its use of the mark to 1991.
According to the company, keyword combinations such as “Hindware Sanitary”, “Hindware Sanitaryware” and related variations were being used by competitors to redirect online traffic towards their businesses.
The company further argued that Google played an active commercial role by suggesting trademarked terms through its keyword planner, conducting keyword auctions, ranking advertisements, and earning revenue from each ad click.
Google’s defence
Google opposed the suits on multiple grounds, including territorial jurisdiction and maintainability. On the trademark issue, it argued that keywords function only as invisible backend triggers and are never seen by users.
The company contended that advertisers independently selected the keywords and created the ads, while Google merely provided a neutral advertising platform.
Google also sought protection under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, claiming intermediary status. It maintained that it could not be held liable for third-party advertising content, so long as it performed a technical and passive role.
“Since users can neither see, or otherwise perceive the keywords provided by the advertiser, such use of trademarks as keywords, being imperceptible or invisible to consumers, cannot be said to amount to ‘use’ under the Trade Marks Act,” Google argued before the Court.
Court rejects intermediary protection
Justice Pushkarna rejected Google’s claim that it acted merely as an intermediary.
The court observed that Google was actively involved in the functioning of the AdWords programme through keyword suggestions, ad ranking systems, auction mechanisms, and monetisation of trademark-linked searches.
“The present issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff (Hindware) and against the defendants (Google),” the judge held.
The court further stated that Google could not avoid responsibility for a system that enabled trademark infringement while continuing to commercially benefit from it.
“Google cannot be permitted to shrug off responsibility by making available a tool that leads to infringement, and then turning around to claim that the said tool was not mandatory,” the judgment said.
Trademark use through keywords
The court ruled that the use of a registered trademark as a keyword trigger amounted to “use in advertising” under section 29 (6) of the Trade Marks Act, even if the trademark itself was not visible in the ad.
Comparing the practice with unlawful meta-tagging, the court accepted Hindware’s argument that invisible use of trademarks in search advertising could still manipulate consumer behaviour by redirecting online traffic towards competitors.
“Google suggests, offers, and sells words, including trademark terms, as keywords to advertisers. This active offering and selling of trademark terms to advertisers is not mere internal use of the trademark term, and is clearly a commercial use,” the Court observed.
Settlements and implications
During the course of the proceedings, Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware, and Omkara Infoweb settled their disputes with Hindware through mediation and consent decrees. The litigation continued only against Google India and Google LLC.
While the court described the matter as one warranting nominal damages, it awarded Rs 15 lakh in each of the two suits, taking the total compensation to Rs 30 lakh. Google has been directed to make the payment within eight weeks.
The ruling is significant for digital advertising and trademark protection in India, as the court recognised keyword-based advertising involving registered trademarks as a form of commercial trademark use under Indian law.
In a judgment delivered on May 22, Justice Mini Pushkarna permanently restrained Google from allowing the use of “HINDWARE” and related variants as advertising keywords within its AdWords ecosystem. The court also ordered Google to bear the actual litigation costs.
The dispute arose from two commercial suits filed by Hindware, then known as HSIL Ltd, during 2013 and 2014, against Google entities, Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware, and Omkara Infoweb.
What Hindware alleged
Hindware claimed that rival sanitaryware companies were purchasing its registered trademark “HINDWARE” and similar keyword combinations through Google’s advertising platform. As a result, ads for competing brands allegedly appeared prominently whenever users searched for Hindware products online.
The company argued that this diverted potential customers searching specifically for Hindware products and unfairly exploited the goodwill attached to its brand, which has previously been recognised by the Delhi High Court as a well-known trademark. It traced its use of the mark to 1991.
According to the company, keyword combinations such as “Hindware Sanitary”, “Hindware Sanitaryware” and related variations were being used by competitors to redirect online traffic towards their businesses.
The company further argued that Google played an active commercial role by suggesting trademarked terms through its keyword planner, conducting keyword auctions, ranking advertisements, and earning revenue from each ad click.
Google’s defence
Google opposed the suits on multiple grounds, including territorial jurisdiction and maintainability. On the trademark issue, it argued that keywords function only as invisible backend triggers and are never seen by users.
The company contended that advertisers independently selected the keywords and created the ads, while Google merely provided a neutral advertising platform.
Google also sought protection under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, claiming intermediary status. It maintained that it could not be held liable for third-party advertising content, so long as it performed a technical and passive role.
“Since users can neither see, or otherwise perceive the keywords provided by the advertiser, such use of trademarks as keywords, being imperceptible or invisible to consumers, cannot be said to amount to ‘use’ under the Trade Marks Act,” Google argued before the Court.
Court rejects intermediary protection
Justice Pushkarna rejected Google’s claim that it acted merely as an intermediary.
The court observed that Google was actively involved in the functioning of the AdWords programme through keyword suggestions, ad ranking systems, auction mechanisms, and monetisation of trademark-linked searches.
“The present issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff (Hindware) and against the defendants (Google),” the judge held.
The court further stated that Google could not avoid responsibility for a system that enabled trademark infringement while continuing to commercially benefit from it.
“Google cannot be permitted to shrug off responsibility by making available a tool that leads to infringement, and then turning around to claim that the said tool was not mandatory,” the judgment said.
Trademark use through keywords
The court ruled that the use of a registered trademark as a keyword trigger amounted to “use in advertising” under section 29 (6) of the Trade Marks Act, even if the trademark itself was not visible in the ad.
Comparing the practice with unlawful meta-tagging, the court accepted Hindware’s argument that invisible use of trademarks in search advertising could still manipulate consumer behaviour by redirecting online traffic towards competitors.
“Google suggests, offers, and sells words, including trademark terms, as keywords to advertisers. This active offering and selling of trademark terms to advertisers is not mere internal use of the trademark term, and is clearly a commercial use,” the Court observed.
Settlements and implications
During the course of the proceedings, Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware, and Omkara Infoweb settled their disputes with Hindware through mediation and consent decrees. The litigation continued only against Google India and Google LLC.
While the court described the matter as one warranting nominal damages, it awarded Rs 15 lakh in each of the two suits, taking the total compensation to Rs 30 lakh. Google has been directed to make the payment within eight weeks.
The ruling is significant for digital advertising and trademark protection in India, as the court recognised keyword-based advertising involving registered trademarks as a form of commercial trademark use under Indian law.
Next Story