Delhi HC refuses interim relief to Google in Hindware trademark keyword appeal

MUMBAI: Google’s fight over trademarked keywords will have to wait a little longer. The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to grant interim relief to Google in its appeal against a single judge’s order restraining the technology giant from using the HINDWARE trademark as an advertising keyword. According to LiveLaw, a division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice on Google’s appeal, directed both parties to file written submissions and listed the matter for final hearing on July 24. Appearing for Google, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the appeal raised an important legal question on whether using another company’s trademark solely as a backend search trigger, without displaying it to users, could amount to trademark infringement. He submitted that the single judge’s order contained no finding of consumer confusion and relied on earlier division bench rulings which, according to him, held that the use of a trademark as a search trigger alone does not constitute infringement unless it creates confusion among consumers. Seeking interim protection, Singhvi further argued that the case did not involve consumer protection issues or unfair trade practices and that there was no judicial finding of confusion in the impugned order. The division bench, however, declined to stay the earlier judgment, observing that it was not expressing any view on the question of consumer confusion at this stage. The judges said they intended to keep an open mind and would examine all issues during the final hearing. The appeal challenges the single judge’s May 22 ruling, which directed Google and Google India to jointly pay Rs 30 lakh in nominal damages to Hindware Limited. In that judgment, the court held that Google could not escape liability by providing a keyword advertising platform that enabled trademark infringement while arguing that advertisers alone were responsible for selecting the keywords. The dispute originated from two trademark infringement suits filed by Hindware, which alleged that competitors Grohe and Cera had purchased the “HINDWARE” trademark and related keyword combinations through Google’s advertising platform. Hindware argued that searches for terms such as “Hindware Sanitaryware” and similar variations displayed sponsored advertisements for rival brands. While Grohe, Cera and Omkara Infoweb subsequently settled the dispute with Hindware, Google remained the sole contesting defendant. The single judge also rejected Google’s argument that it merely facilitated keyword reservations. The court found that Google actively suggested trademarked terms through its Keyword Planner tool, conducted keyword auctions and generated advertising revenue when users clicked sponsored links triggered by those keywords. The July 24 hearing is expected to be closely watched by advertisers, brands and digital platforms, as the outcome could shape how trademarked keywords are bought, sold and used in India’s online advertising ecosystem.