The Delhi High Court has responded to an appeal by Google against a previous decision holding the tech giant accountable for trademark infringement related to the use of ‘HINDWARE’ as a keyword in its Google Ads platform. This appeal contests the May 22 judgment delivered in two commercial lawsuits initiated by Hindware, a leading sanitaryware manufacturer, against competitors Grohe India, Cera Sanitaryware, Omkara Infoweb, and Google itself.
Hindware’s legal contention arose from the appearance of advertisements for rival brands when users searched for ‘HINDWARE’ on Google. The single judge Bench, led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, found Google culpable of trademark infringement, imposing a financial penalty of ₹30 lakh. The decision also restricted Google from utilizing the ‘HINDWARE’ trademark and its variations in its advertising program.
Google’s appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The Bench issued a notice to Hindware and other involved parties, seeking their responses. However, the Court declined to issue an interim injunction, opting instead to schedule the final arguments for July 24.
In the original suits, Hindware accused its market competitors, Grohe and Cera, along with Omkara Infoweb, of purchasing ‘HINDWARE’ and related keywords through Google’s AdWords platform. This resulted in sponsored links for competitors showing prominently when the Hindware brand was searched.
Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed Google’s defense that it merely functions as an intermediary, thus claiming eligibility for safe-harbor protection. The Court proceeded to bar Google from deploying the ‘HINDWARE’ marks and derivatives in its advertising services. The fine levied against Google is to be paid to Hindware within eight weeks.
More Read
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Google during the appeal. He argued that the ruling could potentially disrupt the established dynamics of the search engine industry, emphasizing the importance of offering consumers a broad range of choices. Singhvi highlighted the public interest element, arguing that consumers benefit from competitive advertisement results in search engines.
The case has significant implications for the intersection of trademark law and digital advertising, posing questions about the responsibilities of search engines like Google in maintaining fair advertising practices while delivering comprehensive search results.
