Introduction
Searching for the term “Hindware” on Google today will lead you directly to the brand. However, this was not always the case. Previously, competitors of Hindware would appear first in search results as they had paid Google for this privilege. In a landmark ruling in May, the Delhi High Court deemed this practice as trademark infringement, ordering Google to pay Rs 30 lakh and prohibiting the sale of the keyword “Hindware”. Just eleven weeks later, a US appeals court faced a similar issue but arrived at an entirely different conclusion, highlighting a stark divergence in legal interpretations across countries.
The Indian Ruling
The Delhi High Court’s decision on May 22, 2026, in Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. marked a significant judgment in Indian trademark law. Justice Mini Pushkarna determined that Google infringed Hindware’s trademark by selling it as an advertising keyword to competitors, even though the mark itself never appeared onscreen. The court decided that since “Hindware” is a coined term with no dictionary meaning, users searching for it are specifically seeking the Hindware brand. By suggesting and auctioning the word through its Keyword Planner, Google was profiting from a commercial value it did not own, thus violating Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act. Moreover, Google lost its safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, as the court held that Google’s active role in suggesting and selling the keyword meant it was not merely a passive host.
The American Perspective
Conversely, in the case of Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The NOCO Company, decided on August 4, the Eleventh Circuit Court in the US concluded that keyword bidding does not constitute trademark infringement because the keyword remains unseen by consumers. The court emphasized that since the keyword is invisible, consumers cannot be misled by it, aligning with the broader American legal perspective that centers on consumer confusion as the primary concern in trademark law. This decision joined a consensus among several US Circuit Courts over the past fifteen years.
Underlying Legal Disagreements
The fundamental difference in these rulings boils down to what trademark law aims to protect. In the US, the primary focus is on consumer confusion. In contrast, the Delhi High Court’s decision was based on the concept of unfair advantage, diverging from honest commercial practices without necessarily finding consumer confusion. Google has argued that this positions India as a global outlier, although a similar rationale can be found in European jurisprudence, particularly in the Interflora case under European Union trademark law.
Implications and Future Considerations
Currently, Google’s appeal against the Delhi judgment is pending, with the Division Bench having issued a notice on July 10, and refusing a stay on the earlier decision. Meanwhile, the legal discourse continues on whether auctioning third-party trademarks can be considered neutral, a question that holds significant implications for the future of search engine advertising.
More Read
Conclusion
The case presents a broader debate over the scope of trademark protection, with implications for brand owners, advertisers, and platform operators. While the ruling in favor of Hindware highlights the potential for broader trademark protection in India, it also raises questions about competition and market dynamics in digital advertising.
About the author: Nilanshu Shekhar is a Partner at KAnalysis.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
