Founders seize on Indian court ruling to revive criticism of Google’s ad business

An Indian court ruled that Google’s keyword advertising practices infringed on trademark rights in a dispute involving bathroom fittings maker Hindware. The ruling found Google liable for allowing competitors to use “Hindware” as a keyword on its AdWords platform without authorization, thereby diverting customers searching for the brand. The court awarded Hindware ₹3 million (approximately $31,600) in nominal damages and rejected Google’s defense that it was merely a passive intermediary in serving ads. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized that Google’s facilitation of trademarked keywords for commercial gain violated the Trade Marks Act. The ruling gained renewed attention after prominent Indian entrepreneurs, including Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath and Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu, publicly supported the decision. They highlighted how competitors have long exploited Google’s advertising tools to siphon traffic from established brands, forcing companies to spend on protecting their names. Kamath noted that searches for “Zerodha” often yield competitor ads ahead of the company’s own website, illustrating the broader impact on brand owners. Google responded by stating its global Ads policy prohibits the use of trademarked terms in ad text by competitors and expressed its intent to comply with local legal frameworks while safeguarding user interests. India’s vast internet user base makes such legal decisions particularly significant for Google’s search and advertising operations in the region. Legal experts, however, suggest the ruling’s implications may be limited. Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, explained that while platforms may need to review their automated processes concerning trademarked terms, the decision does not drastically alter online platforms’ liability in India, where courts have already clarified that companies lose protections if they actively participate in unlawful activities. The case underscores ongoing tensions between trademark protection and digital advertising practices, highlighting challenges for platforms like Google in balancing commercial interests with legal compliance in key emerging markets.