Google cannot escape liability as an intermediary for allowing competitors to use Hindware’s trademark as advertising keywords, the Delhi High Court has held, while ruling in favour of the sanitary-ware company in a long-running trademark infringement dispute.
Holding that Google played an active role in monetising trademarked terms through its advertising ecosystem, Justice Mini Pushkarna restrained the company from using marks such as “HINDWARE”, “HINDWARE SANITARYWARE”, “HINDWARE SANITARY”, and related combinations as keywords, and directed it to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages.
“The present issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants,” the court held.
The judgment, delivered on May 22, came in two commercial suits filed by Hindware, through its predecessor HSIL, against Google entities; Grohe India; Cera Sanitaryware; and Omkara Infoweb over keyword advertising practices dating back to 2013-14.
Hindware had alleged that when users searched for “HINDWARE” on Google, advertisements of rival brands surfaced because competitors had purchased the company’s registered trademark and related combinations through Google’s AdWords programme.
During the proceedings, Grohe, Cera and Omkara settled the matter with Hindware, leaving Google India and Google LLC as the only contesting defendants.
Rejecting Google’s defence under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, the court said the company could not claim safe harbour protection because its role extended beyond that of a neutral platform.
The court pointed to Google’s operation of keyword auctions, suggestion of search terms through keyword planning tools, ranking of advertisements, and revenue generation from clicks to conclude that it actively participated in the process.
“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,” the court observed.
On the trademark issue, the court accepted Hindware’s contention that use of trademarks as invisible backend keywords still amounted to “use in advertising” under Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act (1999), even if the terms were not visible in advertisements.
The court further held that allowing competitors selling identical products to purchase trademarked search terms unfairly exploited Hindware’s goodwill, and could confuse consumers.
Hindware had argued that it has used the trademark since 1991, and relied on previous recognition of “HINDWARE” as a well-known mark by the Delhi High Court.
Calling it a fit case for nominal damages, the court awarded Rs 15 lakh in each suit, totalling Rs 30 lakh, and directed Google to pay the amount within eight weeks.
