Indian Court Ruling Challenges Google Keyword Ad Practices

A recent Delhi High Court ruling has intensified scrutiny of Google’s advertising practices, with Indian business leaders arguing that the company’s keyword system facilitates unfair competition [1]. The court found Google liable for trademark infringement in a dispute involving bathroom fittings manufacturer Hindware, awarding the company ₹3 million in nominal damages [1].

Key takeaways

• The Delhi High Court ruled on May 22, 2026, that Google is liable for trademark infringement for allowing competitors to use "Hindware" as a keyword [1].
• Founders, including those from Zerodha and Zoho, claim Google’s ad tools allow rivals to siphon traffic from established brands, forcing companies to pay to protect their own names [1].
• Google maintains that its global policy prohibits advertisers from using trademarked terms in the actual text of an ad [1].
• Legal experts note that while the ruling highlights the platform's active role in ad curation, its broader impact on internet platform liability may be limited [1].

The conflict over keyword advertising

In her 163-page judgment, Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected Google’s defense that it acts merely as a passive intermediary [1]. The court determined that by selling trademarked names as keywords for commercial gain, Google infringed upon the exclusive rights of brand owners under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act [1]. Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath publicly supported the decision, noting that his company has dealt with the issue for over a decade, where searches for his brand often display competitor ads as the top results [1]. Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu also backed the ruling, echoing concerns that businesses are forced to spend money to defend their own brand identities against rivals using Google’s platform [1].

Google stated that it respects local legal frameworks and works through legal processes when it views court orders as inconsistent with its global policies [1]. The company emphasized that its existing Ads policy does not permit advertisers to include trademarked terms within the ad-text itself [1]. While some industry observers suggest the ruling could force platforms to re-examine how their automated tools suggest or offer trademarked keywords to advertisers, legal experts like Aprajita Rana of AZB & Partners suggest the decision does not fundamentally alter the legal landscape for online platforms in India [1].

Why it matters

The ruling is significant because India represents a massive market for Google, hosting more internet users than any country other than China [1]. While the financial penalty is relatively small, the case highlights a growing tension between digital advertising models and trademark protections [1]. As businesses continue to grapple with the costs of defending their brands online, the judgment serves as a reminder that courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize the "participative" role platforms play in ad curation [1]. Moving forward, the decision may encourage other businesses to challenge similar advertising practices, potentially leading to further legal scrutiny of how major tech platforms manage trademarked terms in their automated systems [1].