Google ordered to pay ₹30L as Hindware wins trademark case
What's the story
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that Google infringed Hindware's trademark rights by allowing rival companies to bid on its registered trademark "HINDWARE" through its Google Ads platform. The court has permanently restrained Google from using "HINDWARE" and its variants as advertising keywords, and directed the tech giant to pay ₹30 lakh in damages to Hindware.
Case details
Case revolved around Google's practice of letting advertisers buy trademarks
The case revolved around Google's practice of letting advertisers buy trademarks as keywords, making their sponsored links show up when consumers search for those terms. Hindware alleged that competitors Grohe and Cera bought the keyword "HINDWARE," leading their ads to appear before potential customers looking specifically for Hindware products.
Ruling details
Court rejected Google's argument
The court rejected Google's argument that keywords are just invisible backend triggers and don't amount to trademark use. It said, "It is not necessary that the registered trademark physically appears in an advertisement for the same to be used in advertising." The court also held that using a trademark as a keyword to trigger ads amounts to use of the mark "in advertising" under the Trade Marks Act.
Google's involvement
Not just a passive intermediary, court says
The court noted that Google wasn't just a passive intermediary hosting third-party content, but an active participant in the keyword auction system. It determined ad placements, provided keyword suggestions, and earned revenue from sponsored search results. The judgment also highlighted that Google's policy effectively forces trademark owners to bid on their own trademarks for visibility in search results.
Defense challenged
Court critical of Google's defense under Section 79
The court was also critical of Google's defense under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which gives safe-harbor protection to intermediaries. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that Google wasn't a passive intermediary but an active participant in the keyword auction system. She said it couldn't claim immunity available to neutral platforms as it played an active role by operating this system and earning revenue from sponsored search results.