Google has appealed a Delhi High Court decision holding a search engine liable for trade mark infringement for selling a registered mark to a competitor as an advertising keyword. The decision, in Hindware Limited v. Grohe India Private Limited & Ors., was pronounced by Justice Mini Pushkarna on 22 May 2026, decreeing the suits against Google. The matter is now part-heard before a Division Bench.

The trademark HINDWARE has been in use since 1991. In 2013, Cera Sanitaryware Limited, through the website developer Omkara Infoweb, bought ‘HINDWARE’ under Google AdWords causing searches for Hindware to return a sponsored Cera link. Hindware discovered similar use by Grohe India in 2014. Grohe, Cera, and Omkara Infoweb later settled.

"Use" in advertising

Google argued that a keyword is invisible to the searcher and so is not "use" of the mark. The Court rejected that. Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 refers to use of a mark "in advertising". The Court held that "advertising" is a verb capturing the whole promotional process, wider than the noun "advertisement", which is only the end display the consumer sees. Because the keyword causes the advertisement to appear, its use falls within the process of advertising and so within Section 29(6)(d).

The Court also relied on Section 29(8), which protects a proprietor against advertising that takes unfair advantage of its mark, or is contrary to honest industrial or commercial practices. HINDWARE was treated as a coined word with no dictionary meaning, entitled to a higher degree of protection. Consequently, selling and auctioning such a mark to competitors, enabled others to take unfair advantage of its reputation and goodwill.

Findings and Safe Harbour

Two findings carry weight for appeal. First, infringement under Section 29(8) does not require proof of likelihood of confusion. The provision protects the investment and advertising functions of a mark; its use resulting in dilution or unfair advantage is actionable even without confusion. Second, the Court declined to treat Google as a passive facilitator. Through its Keyword Planner tool, Google suggested and auctioned the coined mark and earned revenue from the resulting clicks, and so was actively participating.

That second finding proved fatal to Google's safe harbour defence under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The exemption under Section 79 assumes a passive intermediary but Google supplied the tool enabling the use and profited from it. The Court held that offering such a tool carries responsibility even if its use is optional.

The Court permanently restrained Google from using HINDWARE and its variants as keywords or AdWords, or in any manner infringing, and awarded nominal damages of INR 30,00,000/- together with actual costs of the litigation.

Where the judgment sits

Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809) and Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7965) walked this road before Hindware did, but the Single Judge took a different turn at the next crossing. Both agreed with Hindware on the threshold point, keyword use is "use" of a trade mark. Both parted company with Hindware on the next step. The marks in those cases were conjugations of generic or descriptive words, and the Bench in each case was sitting at the interlocutory stage. Hindware, by contrast, was decided after a full trial, on a coined mark with no dictionary meaning, and the Court found that selling and auctioning such a mark to competitors took unfair advantage of its reputation and goodwill, contrary to honest practices under Section 29(8).

On 10 July 2026, a Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on the connected appeals and listed them for 24 July 2026. That day, Google opened arguments; Grohe and Cera were deleted as parties owing to their settlement, and Hindware's written submissions were taken on record. The appeals remain pending as on the date of this article. The matter has been adjourned to 17 September 2026, and the injunction remains in force.

Conclusion

The decision offers practical guidance. Advertisers should distinguish between marks: generic or descriptive terms remain low risk, while a competitor’s coined or well-known mark is high-risk. Proprietors of coined marks are better placed, and they should monitor sponsored results and complain promptly. Platforms should maintain notice-and-takedown procedures and avoid suggesting third-party marks as keywords. How far the principle reaches beyond coined marks, and whether it survives the appeal, depends on the Division Bench.