Delhi High – An Indian court ruling from May 22 found Google liable for trademark infringement tied to its keyword advertising practices, and entrepreneurs quickly seized on the decision—arguing competitors use Google’s tools to divert customer traffic and force brands to
By Friday, the ruling had stopped being a court document and started acting like a rallying point.
On May 22, the Delhi High Court delivered a 163-page judgment in a trademark dispute involving bathroom fittings maker Hindware, finding Google liable over its keyword advertising practices. The court awarded Google ₹3 million (around $31,600) in nominal damages.
The fight turned on how “Hindware” was used in Google’s ad system. In the judgment. Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected Google’s position that it was only a passive intermediary in serving ads on its search platform. The judge said Google. through its AdWords platform. allowed Hindware’s rivals to use “Hindware” as a keyword to target users searching for the brand.
“Google by selling the trademark of the plaintiff [Hindware] as a keyword without any authorization for commercial gains is infringing the plaintiff’s right to exclusive use of its trademark under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act,” the judge wrote in the decision.
That language landed hard inside India’s startup community, where founders have long argued that the ad market rewards the wrong kind of competition—one that doesn’t build brand trust, but instead captures intent.
Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath and Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu publicly backed the ruling after it resurfaced in the wider debate. Kamath said Zerodha had faced the issue for more than a decade and posted on X: “Whenever someone searches for ‘Zerodha. ’ the traffic should rightfully come to Zerodha. But what often happens is that the first couple of results on Google Search are ads. leading the customer to a competitor’s website.”.
The argument from founders was simple: competitors don’t just advertise; they use Google’s keyword tools to siphon off customers searching for established brands, and then force those brands to pay to protect their own names.
Google, for its part, pushed back on the central claim. In a statement to TechCrunch, the company said its Ads policy on trademark keywords “does not allow competitor advertisers to use trademarked terms in the ad-text of an ad” and said the policy is applied globally.
“We look forward to continuing to align our operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining strict standards to protect our users’ long-term interests,” a Google spokesperson said.
Google’s position matters in India more than anywhere else. India is a key market for the company, with more internet users than any country other than China—so court decisions affecting search and advertising can quickly ripple beyond one dispute.
Even so, some legal experts cautioned that the broader public takeaway may be bigger than the ruling’s practical reach.
Aprajita Rana. a partner at AZB & Partners. said the decision would likely push platforms to “relook at their processes to see if their automated tools encourage or offer trademarked terms to advertisers at large.” But she also told TechCrunch the decision does not have a “far-reaching impact” on online platforms’ liability in India.
Courts in India. Rana said. have already established that internet companies can lose legal protections when they take an active role in unlawful activity. “What’s important in this case is how providing access to trademarked terms. even in ad curation that’s between online platforms and advertisers and not known to customers. can amount to a participative activity for platforms. ” she said.
For brands watching the outcome. the tension is clear: even when customers aren’t aware of the keyword mechanics behind ads. the court’s reasoning suggests intent can still be treated as infringement. And for founders like Kamath. the ruling arrives after years of describing the same experience—searching for a name and being met. almost immediately. with an advertisement meant to redirect that search elsewhere.
Delhi High Court Google AdWords keyword advertising trademark infringement Hindware Nithin Kamath Zerodha Sridhar Vembu Zoho India court ruling cybersecurity not relevant online advertising policy
Google getting sued again, shocking.
So are they basically saying if I search a brand name it has to show only that brand? That seems kinda impossible with how ads work. Also only like $31k?? that feels tiny for Google.
I don’t get it because the keyword isn’t the same as the ad content? Like the court just chose “Hindware” keyword and called it infringement. Meanwhile on my side of the internet it’s like every company pays to show up first anyway. Maybe Google should block all brand searches, but that’ll never happen lol.
This is why I stopped using Google shopping/ads, it’s always the weird third party links. I saw some guy on YouTube say this court ruling proves Google is “stealing brands” which sounds dramatic but also… yeah, the whole keyword thing feels scummy. $3 million nominal damages doesn’t really scare anybody tho, it’s more like “go argue more in court” energy. Also they cut/paste old decisions and it becomes a rallying point?? sounds like social media caught wind and ran with it.