Indian Court Rules Against Google's Keyword Advertising Practices, Sparking Broader Debate

A Delhi High Court ruling has found Google liable for trademark infringement over its keyword advertising practices, awarding Indian bathroom fittings manufacturer Hindware ₹3 million — approximately $31,600 — in nominal damages, and reigniting a long-running debate among entrepreneurs about how the search giant's ad platform handles trademarked terms.

The judgment, delivered on May 22 by Justice Mini Pushkarna, spans 163 pages and rejects Google's position that it operates as a passive intermediary on its search platform. The court found that Google, through its AdWords platform, permitted Hindware's competitors to purchase "Hindware" as a keyword, directing users searching for the brand toward rival products instead.

"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," Justice Pushkarna wrote in the ruling.

The decision drew significant public attention after prominent Indian founders voiced support for the judgment. Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath and Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu both backed the ruling, arguing that competitors have used Google's advertising tools for years to siphon traffic from established brands and effectively force those companies to pay to defend their own names in search results.

Kamath, who said Zerodha had encountered the problem for more than a decade, wrote 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."

Google disputed the characterization of its practices. 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 that this policy is applied globally. Google added that it respects local laws and pursues legal processes when court orders are "overbroad or inconsistent" with its policies.

"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 in a statement.

India represents a critical market for the company, with more internet users than any country other than China — a fact that makes legal rulings affecting its search and advertising revenue particularly consequential.

Legal experts cautioned, however, that the ruling's scope may be narrower than the public reaction implies. Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, said the judgment would require platforms to review whether their automated tools encourage or offer trademarked terms to advertisers broadly.

Rana nonetheless told TechCrunch that the decision does not carry a "far-reaching impact" on online platforms' liability in India, noting that courts 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," Rana said.

The ruling adds to a growing body of legal challenges Google faces across global markets over its advertising business. Whether Indian courts will build on the Hindware precedent — or whether the decision remains a narrowly applied trademark judgment — will likely depend on future litigation and how aggressively affected brand owners choose to pursue similar claims.

Disclaimer