India's evolving jurisprudence on keyword advertising sits at the intersection of trademark law, platform regulation, and digital competition policy - and remains far from settled
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Hindware Ltd v. Grohe India (Hindware) marks an important moment in India’s evolving jurisprudence on trademarks and keyword advertising. The dispute arose from the use of “Hindware”, a registered and well-known mark, as a keyword in Google’s AdWords programme, allowing competitors’ sponsored links to appear when users searched for Hindware-related terms. The Court held that Google’s sale and use of the mark as a keyword amounted to trademark infringement, restrained Google from using Hindware’s registered marks and combinations as keywords, and awarded nominal damages and costs.
This piece aims to understand why keyword bidding creates a trademark problem, and examines how Indian courts have approached the issue, what Hindware means for businesses and platforms, and where the law may go next.
Google Ads, formerly known as AdWords, allows businesses to display advertisements, service offerings, and product listings across the Google ecosystem. At the heart of this model is keyword advertising, under which advertisers bid on specific words or phrases. When a user enters a search query that matches those keywords, sponsored results may appear alongside organic search results. When a user clicks on one of these sponsored links, Google earns revenue.
When competitors bid on a brand name or trademark as a keyword, a company's goodwill can become the trigger for a rival's visibility.
When competitors bid on a brand name or trademark as a keyword, a company's goodwill can become the trigger for a rival's visibility. A consumer searching for one brand may first encounter a competitor's sponsored link. In competitive markets, this can turn search advertising into a form of brand interception, forcing businesses to bid defensively on their own marks simply to remain visible.
This is where trademark law becomes relevant. A trademark protects not just a word or logo, but the source, reputation, and trust associated with it. The concern is that keyword bidding may allow competitors to free ride on this goodwill by intercepting consumers who are searching for another brand. The legal question is whether such advertising takes unfair advantage of another's reputation or creates consumer confusion.
Indian courts have grappled with the use of trademarks as keywords in Google Ads for more than a decade. The early dispute in Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. (Consim) concerned marks such as 'BharatMatrimony' and 'TamilMatrimony', which were composite marks built around descriptive and community-based terms. The Madras High Court recognised that the use of such marks in keyword advertising could amount to commercial use, but was cautious in granting a broad injunction. The Court was conscious that preventing the use of words such as "Tamil" and "matrimony" could restrict competition in a market where these words also described the service itself.
An important feature of Consim was Google's own trademark policy. At the time, Google represented that it did not permit trademarked terms in ad text, and the Court expected this policy to be enforced. This is significant because Google's position in India later changed, with trademarks no longer being restricted as keywords. The later disputes, therefore, are not only about individual advertisers bidding on rival marks, but also about a platform policy that permits and monetises trademark bidding.
The later Matrimony.com appeals before the Madras High Court treated Google's AdWords programme as creating a common platform for similar or competing products and services through search engine optimisation and marketing. Since the marks at issue were built around generic and descriptive terms such as language, community, and "matrimony", the Court was reluctant to grant an injunction that would, in effect, unsettle Google's advertising policy and allow the appellant to monopolise search results. It also held that there was no likelihood of confusion, initial interest confusion, or dilution, as users consciously choose which website to visit after seeing the results.
Subsequently, in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. (DRS), the Delhi High Court held that the use of trademarks as keywords can amount to "use" under the Trade Marks Act, and that Google's role may not always be passive where it suggests, sells, and monetises keywords. However, the Court rejected a per se rule of infringement. It noted that a user searching for a trademark may also be looking for reviews, alternatives, competitors, or related services. Infringement would therefore depend on confusion, unfair advantage, dilution, or harm to the mark's function. The same approach was followed in Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. (MakeMyTrip), where the Court again held that the use of a trademark as a keyword, absent confusion or unfair advantage, does not automatically amount to infringement. The approach was competition-sensitive: trademark law should prevent deception, but not stop competitors from appearing in search results merely because a consumer searched for a brand.
Hindware sits within this line of cases but marks a sharper turn. It does not completely overturn DRS or MakeMyTrip. Instead, it narrows the inquiry by placing greater emphasis on the nature of the mark, the factual context, and Google's commercial role. The judgment moves the debate beyond the visible use of a trademark in ad text to its commercial use as a keyword that can trigger competing advertisements. It also reinforces the view that Google's role in the AdWords programme cannot always be treated as passive: the platform sells, suggests, ranks, and monetises keywords.
This distinction was central. Hindware was not about descriptive combinations such as "packers and movers" or "matrimony". It concerned "Hindware", a coined, distinctive, and well-known mark used in relation to directly competing sanitaryware products. The Court therefore viewed Google's conduct not as a neutral technical process, but as the active offering and sale of trademarked terms for commercial gain.
Google argued that keywords were invisible backend triggers chosen by advertisers, and that Google merely provided advertising space with intermediary protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. The Court rejected this position, holding that Google's role was not passive, since it operated auctions, suggested search terms, ranked ads, and earned revenue from sponsored clicks.
The implications for businesses are immediate. Brand owners, especially those with coined, distinctive, or well-known marks, now have stronger grounds to challenge the use of their marks as keywords. This is particularly relevant in search-driven sectors where customer acquisition depends heavily on online visibility, including travel, logistics, consumer-facing goods, and other digital-first markets.
Platforms may also need stronger trademark complaint and takedown systems in India. The defence that keywords are invisible backend triggers may not be sufficient where the platform is seen as suggesting, auctioning, ranking, and monetising the mark.
Competitors will also need to review how they structure paid search campaigns. Bidding on a rival's mark may not be automatically unlawful, but the risk increases where the advertisement suggests association, endorsement, substitution, or affiliation. Performance marketing teams, legal teams, and advertising agencies will need to work more closely to assess whether keyword strategies create trademark exposure.
Platforms may also need stronger trademark complaint and takedown systems in India. The defence that keywords are invisible backend triggers may not be sufficient where the platform is seen as suggesting, auctioning, ranking, and monetising the mark. This is particularly relevant because in keyword advertising, platforms are not merely passive conduits: their design choices shape how consumers encounter brands and competitors in the digital marketplace.
At the same time, the business consequences of an overbroad prohibition should not be ignored. Keyword advertising is also a way for smaller firms and new entrants to reach consumers. If all trademark bidding is prohibited, established brands may gain disproportionate control over search visibility. This could increase advertising costs, reduce consumer access to alternatives, and weaken competitive intensity. The challenge is to distinguish between legitimate competitive advertising and the unfair commercial appropriation of another's goodwill.
India's legal position remains unsettled. There is still no final word from the Supreme Court on the use of trademarks as keywords in search advertising. Currently, the law is being shaped by High Courts, with outcomes turning on the nature of the mark, the wording and placement of the advertisement, evidence of confusion, the relationship between the parties, and Google's role in the advertising process. Appeals may still recalibrate this balance.
The Hindware ruling’s wider legacy will depend on how appellate courts balance three competing interests: the right of a trademark owner to protect goodwill, the right of competitors to advertise lawfully, and the responsibility of platforms that design and monetise the digital marketplace in which both operate.
For now, Hindware is best understood as a strong, plaintiff-protective ruling in a specific factual setting: a coined and well-known mark, direct competitors, paid search advertising, and a finding that Google commercially benefited from the use of the mark as a keyword. The Hindware ruling’s wider legacy will depend on how appellate courts balance three competing interests: the right of a trademark owner to protect goodwill, the right of competitors to advertise lawfully, and the responsibility of platforms that design and monetise the digital marketplace in which both operate.
India should avoid both extremes. Platforms should not be allowed to monetise another's goodwill without accountability. At the same time, trademark law should not become a tool to suppress lawful competition and consumer choice. The real test after Hindware will be whether Indian courts can draw this line with clarity.
Basu Chandola is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Basu Chandola is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, where his work focuses on the governance of the digital economy, including artificial intelligence, ...
Read More +
PREV