Founders Use Indian Court Decision to Reignite Criticism of Google’s Advertising Practices

A recent ruling by an Indian court regarding Google’s keyword advertising practices has sparked renewed interest after its founders claimed that competitors have long taken advantage of the system to divert customers and force companies to invest in protecting their own brand identities.

The judgment, issued by the Delhi High Court on May 22 in a trademark case concerning the bathroom fittings company Hindware, determined that Google was liable for trademark infringement related to its keyword advertising strategies and awarded Hindware ₹3 million (around $31,600) in nominal damages.

In her detailed 163-page judgment (PDF), Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected Google’s argument that it simply functioned as a passive intermediary in displaying ads on its search platform. The judge emphasized that through its AdWords platform, Google allowed Hindware’s competitors to use “Hindware” as a keyword to target those searching for the brand.

“Google, by selling the trademark of the plaintiff [Hindware] as a keyword without any authorization for commercial gain, infringes upon the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use its trademark as per Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act,” the judge noted.

The ruling garnered attention on Friday after various Indian entrepreneurs, including Nithin Kamath of Zerodha and Sridhar Vembu of Zoho, publicly endorsed the decision, arguing that competitors have continuously exploited Google’s advertising platform to redirect traffic from established brands, forcing companies to spend money to protect their identities.

Kamath, mentioning Zerodha’s decade-long struggles with this issue, voiced on X: “When someone searches for ‘Zerodha,’ they should rightfully land on our site. However, often the top results on Google Search are ads that lead the customer to a competitor’s website.”

In response, Google stated that its Ads policy concerning trademark keywords “does not allow competitors to use trademarked terms in the ad text of an ad,” and affirmed that this policy is enforced worldwide.

“We are committed to aligning our operations with local legal standards while maintaining rigorous measures to protect our users’ long-term interests,” a Google spokesperson told TechCrunch.

India is a crucial market for Google, having more internet users than any other nation except China, making court rulings that affect its search and advertising operations particularly significant.

Legal experts, however, indicated that the implications of the ruling might be more limited than public sentiment suggests.

“The judgment will certainly encourage platforms to reevaluate their practices to ensure their automated systems do not indiscriminately promote or provide trademarked terms to advertisers,” explained Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners.

Nonetheless, Rana informed TechCrunch that the ruling may not result in a “far-reaching impact” on the liability of online platforms in India, as courts have previously established that internet companies can lose legal protections if they engage in illegal activities.

“The pivotal aspect of this case is how allowing access to trademarked terms—even in ad curation between online platforms and advertisers unknown to customers—can be interpreted as a participatory act by the platforms,” Rana added.