Delhi High Court Holds Google Liable for Trademark Infringement Through Keyword Advertising: Hindware v. Grohe

Summary 

In a significant ruling on the intersection of trademark law and digital advertising, the Delhi High Court in batch matters Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [CS(COMM) 591/2017] and Hindware Ltd. v. Omkara Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. [CS(COMM) 592/2017] held that Google’s practice of permitting advertisers to bid on a competitor’s registered trademark as a keyword under its AdWords programme can amount to trademark infringement. The Court observed that allowing competitors to use the well-known trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword enabled them to unfairly benefit from the goodwill associated with the mark and constituted an unauthorized commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s trademark rights. The judgment reinforces the principle that trademark protection extends beyond traditional forms of use and applies equally within the online advertising ecosystem. 

Facts of the Case 

The plaintiff, Hindware Limited, is the proprietor of the trademark “HINDWARE,” a well-known and extensively used mark in relation to sanitaryware, bathroom fittings, and allied products. Over several decades, the plaintiff had built substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark through continuous use and extensive advertising. 

The dispute arose when Hindware discovered that competing businesses, including manufacturers and sellers of sanitaryware products, were using the keyword “HINDWARE” through Google’s AdWords programme. Under this advertising model, advertisers could bid on specific keywords so that their sponsored advertisements would appear when users searched for those terms on Google’s search engine. 

As a result, internet users searching for “HINDWARE” were shown advertisements for competing brands, including CERA and GROHE, often before or alongside the plaintiff’s own search results. Hindware argued that Google was not merely a passive intermediary but was actively facilitating and profiting from the use of its registered trademark by competitors. The plaintiff therefore sought injunctive relief against Google and the advertisers for infringement and unauthorized exploitation of its trademark rights. 

Issue before the Court 

Whether Google’s practice of allowing competitors to purchase and use the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword under its AdWords programme amounted to trademark infringement and unfair commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s trademark. 

Findings of the Court 

The Court noted that “HINDWARE” was a coined and distinctive trademark that had acquired the status of a well-known mark. Given the reputation and recognition attached to the mark, it was entitled to a high degree of legal protection. 

Rejecting Google’s contention that keywords function merely as invisible backend tools and therefore do not amount to trademark use, the Court held that the commercial value of a trademark extends beyond its visible display. The Court emphasized that trademarks serve multiple functions, including identifying origin, preserving goodwill, and representing significant advertising and investment value. 

The Court observed that Google actively encouraged advertisers to bid on trademarks and derived revenue from such bidding. By making the plaintiff’s trademark available for purchase as a keyword, Google enabled competitors to attract consumers searching specifically for Hindware products. This, according to the Court, constituted an unauthorized use of the trademark and allowed competitors to take unfair advantage of the goodwill associated with the mark. 

The Court further held that permitting such keyword bidding was contrary to honest commercial practices. While comparative advertising and market competition are legitimate commercial activities, the Court emphasized that competition cannot be achieved through the unauthorized exploitation of another trader’s proprietary rights. The use of a competitor’s trademark as a keyword effectively diverted consumer attention and diluted the exclusivity enjoyed by the trademark owner under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

Importantly, the Court clarified that the exclusive rights conferred upon a registered proprietor under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act are not limited to visible instances of trademark infringement. Those rights also protect the proprietor from unauthorized commercial use that capitalizes on the reputation and value of the mark, including in digital advertising environments. 

Held 

The Delhi High Court decreed the suits in favour of Hindware and granted a permanent injunction restraining Google from using or permitting the use of the plaintiff’s trademark “HINDWARE” as a keyword or AdWord in a manner that infringes the plaintiff’s rights. The Court held that Google’s AdWords policy, to the extent that it facilitated bidding on the plaintiff’s trademark by competitors, amounted to trademark infringement and unfair commercial exploitation of the mark’s goodwill and reputation. 

Conclusion 

The judgment is a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence and reflects the judiciary’s willingness to adapt traditional trademark principles to modern digital business practices. By recognizing keyword advertising as a potential form of trademark use, the Court has expanded the scope of trademark protection in the online marketplace. The decision sends a strong message that search engines and digital advertising platforms cannot commercially benefit from the unauthorized use of registered trademarks. It also provides valuable guidance for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in an increasingly competitive and technology-driven advertising landscape. 

Last Updated on 13 June, 2026