Delhi High Court Ruling Puts Google's Keyword Ad Practices Under the Microscope

A significant ruling from the Delhi High Court on May 22, 2026, has reignited a critical debate around digital advertising and brand protection, specifically targeting Google's AdWords practices. The court found Google liable for trademark infringement in a dispute involving the bathroom fittings manufacturer, Hindware, awarding the company ₹3 million (approximately $31,600) in nominal damages.

Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered the 163-page judgment, rejecting Google's long-held defense of being a "passive intermediary" in serving ads. The court explicitly stated, "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." This means the court found Google actively participated in the infringement by allowing Hindware's rivals to use its brand name as a keyword to target users.

The judgment gained considerable public attention on Friday, following its release, as prominent Indian entrepreneurs voiced their support. Nithin Kamath, founder of Zerodha, took to X (formerly Twitter) to back the ruling, stating, "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." Kamath noted that Zerodha has faced this keyword advertising issue for over a decade. Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho, also publicly backed the ruling, arguing that competitors frequently leverage Google's tools to divert traffic from established brands.

This public outcry has revived broader criticisms of Google's ad business. While Google's spokesperson told TechCrunch, "We look forward to continuing to align our operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining strict standards to protect our users' long-term interests," the company also reiterated that its Ads policy does not permit competitor advertisers to use trademarked terms *in the ad text* of an ad. The Delhi High Court ruling, however, specifically addressed the use of trademarks as *keywords* for targeting, a nuance often at the heart of these disputes.

Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, offered a more tempered legal perspective to TechCrunch reporter Jagmeet. She noted, "The judgment per se will require platforms to relook at their processes to see if their automated tools encourage or offer trademarked terms to advertisers at large." Rana emphasized, "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." However, she also clarified that the ruling does not necessarily have a "far-reaching impact" on online platforms' overall liability in India, as courts have previously established that internet companies can lose legal protections when actively involved in unlawful activities. The question of whether Google will appeal or alter its keyword advertising practices in India remains open, but the conversation around brand ownership in the digital ad space is certainly heating up.

[Original Source](https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/29/founders-seize-on-indian-court-ruling-to-revive-criticism-of-googles-ad-business/)