Indian Court Ruling Sparks Renewed Scrutiny of Google’s Advertising Practices
A recent ruling by the Delhi High Court has intensified discussions surrounding Google’s advertising practices, particularly its use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising. On May 22, 2026, the court found Google liable for trademark infringement in a case involving Hindware, a prominent Indian bathroom fittings manufacturer. The court awarded Hindware ₹3 million (approximately $31,600) in damages, highlighting concerns over Google’s AdWords platform allowing competitors to bid on trademarked keywords.
Background of the Case
Hindware initiated legal action against Google, alleging that the tech giant permitted rival companies to use Hindware as a keyword in their advertising campaigns. This practice, Hindware argued, diverted potential customers to competitors’ websites, thereby infringing on its trademark rights. Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the case, dismissed Google’s defense of being a passive intermediary. She stated that by selling Hindware’s trademark as a keyword without authorization, Google violated Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, which grants proprietors exclusive rights to their trademarks.
Reactions from the Business Community
The court’s decision has resonated deeply within India’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Nithin Kamath, founder of the brokerage firm Zerodha, expressed his support for the ruling. He highlighted that for over a decade, competitors have used Google’s advertising tools to divert traffic from established brands, compelling companies to invest heavily in protecting their own names. Kamath noted that when users search for Zerodha, the top results are often ads leading to competitors’ websites, a situation he described as a longstanding issue.
Similarly, Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho Corporation, backed the court’s decision. He emphasized the challenges businesses face when competitors exploit their brand names through keyword advertising, leading to increased marketing costs and potential customer confusion.
Google’s Response
In response to the ruling, Google reiterated its global policy on trademark keywords, stating that it does not allow advertisers to use trademarked terms in the ad text of their advertisements. A Google spokesperson emphasized the company’s commitment to aligning its operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining strict standards to protect users’ long-term interests.
Legal Implications and Expert Opinions
Legal experts suggest that while the ruling necessitates a reassessment of advertising platforms’ processes, its broader impact may be limited. Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, indicated that the judgment requires platforms to review whether their automated tools encourage or offer trademarked terms to advertisers. However, she noted that the decision does not significantly alter the liability landscape for online platforms in India, as courts have previously established that active participation in unlawful activities can negate legal protections.
Historical Context and Precedents
This ruling is not an isolated incident. In August 2023, the Delhi High Court ruled that Google’s Ads program fell under the purview of the country’s Trademarks Act, requiring the company to remove ads that infringe upon trademarks. The case, initiated by logistics firm DRS, highlighted how searches for its trademark Agarwal Packers and Movers returned competitor websites, leading to allegations that Google’s ad mechanism exploited its trademark to divert users to rival sites.
Furthermore, in March 2025, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the Competition Commission of India’s ruling against Google for abusing its dominant position related to Play Store policies. While the penalty was reduced from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216 crore, the tribunal emphasized that Google must allow app developers to use third-party billing services and refrain from imposing anti-steering provisions.
Global Perspective
The scrutiny of Google’s advertising practices is not confined to India. In April 2025, a U.S. judge ruled that Google had illegally monopolized online advertising, raising questions about the company’s control over the digital ad marketplace. This global trend indicates a growing concern over the balance between technological innovation and fair market competition.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s recent ruling against Google marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on digital advertising ethics and trademark protection. As businesses increasingly rely on online platforms for visibility, the judgment underscores the need for clear guidelines and fair practices in digital advertising. For companies like Google, aligning their operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining user trust will be crucial in navigating this evolving landscape.
