Tech giant Google has approached the Delhi High Court to challenge a single-judge ruling that held the company responsible for trademark infringement. The dispute centers on Google's advertising platform, Google Ads (formerly AdWords), where the court found Google liable for allowing advertisers to use Hindware's registered trademarks as keywords.
Delhi HC Division Bench to Hear Appeal
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet P.S. Arora issued notice to Hindware regarding Google's appeal. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 24. While the Bench will examine Google's challenge to the findings and the award of damages, it declined to grant interim relief by staying the direction requiring Google to pay damages at this stage.
The Original Ruling and Damages
The appeal stems from a May 22 judgment where a single judge of the Delhi High Court ordered Google to pay ₹30 lakh in damages to Hindware. This was due to Google permitting the use of the sanitaryware company's registered trademarks, such as "Hindware," "Hindware Sanitaryware," and "Hindware Sanitar," as keywords within its Google Ads program.
Hindware Ltd. had filed two trademark infringement suits, alleging that Google enabled competitors to purchase these keywords, thereby diverting potential customers searching for Hindware's products to rival brands.
Court's Rationale and Google's Defense
The single judge's ruling concluded that Google's actions provided competitors with an unfair commercial advantage and violated provisions of the Trade Marks Act. The court observed that allowing rival businesses to target consumers searching for Hindware's trademarks constituted an "unfair practice" and exploited the brand's goodwill for Google's advertising business.
Furthermore, the court noted that Google had not obtained Hindware's prior consent before offering or selling its registered trademarks as advertising keywords to third parties. Google's defense under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, which offers "safe harbor" protection to intermediaries, was rejected. The court determined that Google's practice of auctioning and selling trademarks as keywords was an active commercial activity, extending beyond that of a passive intermediary.
Google's Arguments on Appeal
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Google, contended that the single-judge ruling was inconsistent with established judicial precedents and internationally accepted practices governing online advertising. The Division Bench will now review these arguments as it proceeds with the case.