The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in the case of Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3913, marks a significant development in India’s legal landscape regarding trademarks and keyword advertising. The case centered around the use of the registered trademark ‘HINDWARE’ within Google’s AdWords program, leading to competitors’ advertisements appearing when users searched for Hindware-related terms.
Since 1991, Hindware Ltd. has exclusively used the ‘HINDWARE’ trademark in connection with sanitaryware and bathroom accessories. Google India Private Limited and Google LLC manage the Google AdWords Program, which allows advertisers to bid on keywords. This system means that when a user enters a keyword into Google’s search engine, the advertiser’s link appears prominently at the top of the search results. Google’s Keyword Planner Tool actively suggests popular keywords, including those that are trademarked, to advertisers.
Hindware discovered that Grohe India Pvt. Ltd., a competitor, had purchased ‘HINDWARE’, ‘HINDWARE SANITARYWARE’, and similar terms as keywords on Google’s platform, causing Grohe’s website to appear as a top sponsored result. Similar actions were taken by other companies such as Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. and Omkara Infoweb Pvt. Ltd., leading to litigation solely against Google after settlements with the competitors.
Arguments from Hindware Ltd.
Hindware contended that using ‘HINDWARE’ as a keyword constituted ‘use’ of the trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA). They cited Section 2(2)(c)(i), which defines ‘use’ broadly to include non-visual uses, and Section 29(6)(d), which states that a trademark is used ‘in advertising’, encompassing keywords that trigger ads even when the mark is not visible in the ad text. Hindware argued that Google, by actively suggesting trademarked terms for bidding, was not just an intermediary but an active participant in trademark use, infringing on their rights.
Google’s Defense
Google argued that keywords are invisible triggers and do not constitute ‘use’ under trademark law, as they are not perceivable by consumers. Google claimed that Section 29(6)(d) of the TMA refers to visible advertising, and backend keyword usage does not cause consumer confusion. Google also argued that its actions amounted to fair use, promoting fair competition and consumer choice, as supported by the Competition Commission of India.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Court ruled in favor of Hindware, issuing a permanent injunction against Google LLC and Google India from using ‘HINDWARE’ and related terms as advertising keywords. The Court awarded nominal damages of ₹30,00,000, payable jointly by Google entities, along with litigation costs.
The Court emphasized the distinctiveness of the ‘HINDWARE’ trademark, which has been in exclusive use since 1991 and recognized as a well-known mark since 2017. The judgment rejected Google’s argument of invisibility, holding that keyword use constitutes ‘use’ under the TMA and analogized it to the use of meta-tags, which courts have consistently deemed as trademark infringement.
Google’s role as an active participant was highlighted, given its involvement in suggesting, auctioning, and profiting from trademarked keyword use. The Court found Google’s actions as contrary to honest commercial practices, infringing on the trademark under Section 29(8) of the TMA.
More Read
Furthermore, the Court denied Google the protection of safe harbor under Section 79 of the IT Act, as Google’s own conduct of auctioning and profiting from trademarked keywords went beyond that of a neutral intermediary.
About the Authors: Zeeshan A Khan is a Partner, and Keshav Yadav is an Associate at Luthra and Luthra Law Offices India.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Bar & Bench.
