Google Adwords 
Dispute Before Delhi High Court
Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (decided May 22, 2026) is a landmark Delhi High Court ruling that established Google’s liability for trademark infringement when trademarked brand names are sold as keywords in its AdWords platform.
The Dispute in Brief –
Hindware Limited discovered that competitors (such as Grohe, Cera, and Omkara Infoweb) were bidding on the trademark “HINDWARE” as a Google Ads keyword. As a result, when internet users searched for Hindware, sponsored links to rival sanitaryware websites appeared at the top of the search results, diverting potential customers.
The Core Arguments advanced by the Parties-
- Plaintiff (Hindware): Argued that selling its registered trademark to competitors as a backend search trigger constitutes trademark infringement, passing off, and an attempt to free-ride on its long-standing corporate goodwill.
- Defendant (Google): Claimed “safe harbour” protection as a passive intermediary under Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act. Google argued that keywords are invisible to the end-user, do not constitute “trademark use,” and merely foster healthy digital competition and consumer choice.
The Court’s Verdict in Brief-
The Single Judge Bench ruled against Google, holding Google LLC and Google India jointly and severally liable for trademark infringement. The court found that:
- Active Participation: Google is not a passive intermediary. Through its Keyword Planner Tool and automated auction systems, Google actively suggests, facilitates, and monetizes the use of trademarked terms.
- Infringement: Backend use of a competitor’s trademark to divert web traffic constitutes unauthorized “use in the course of trade” under India’s Trade Marks Act.
- Penalties: The court restrained Google from allowing “HINDWARE” as an advertising keyword and ordered Google to pay ₹30 lakh in damages along with litigation costs.
Google appealed the verdict before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in July 2026, arguing that the judgment restricts fair competition. While the court has issued a notice to hear the appeal, it refused to stay the single judge’s order, meaning the restriction remains active for now.
Source: Delhi High Court, Calcutta High Court, IPINDIA, Swarupa Ghosh Law Chamber