Google, a company that earned Rs 34,000 crore in gross advertising in India last year, was ordered by the Delhi High Court to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages for trademark infringement. The ruling, issued on May 22, holds Google liable for its keyword advertising practices. The ruling, issued on May 22, holds Google liable for its keyword advertising practices, directly impacting how online ad platforms operate in the country, especially concerning trademark usage in ad keywords.
Google generates massive revenue from its keyword advertising business. However, its fundamental practice of allowing trademarked terms as ad keywords has now been deemed liable for infringement in India. Its fundamental practice of allowing trademarked terms as ad keywords has now been deemed liable for infringement in India, creating a tension between Google's operational model and intellectual property rights in the region.
Based on this Indian court ruling, Google is likely to face increased scrutiny and potential pressure to modify its keyword advertising policies in India. Based on this Indian court ruling, Google is likely to face increased scrutiny and potential pressure to modify its keyword advertising policies in India, setting a precedent that could empower more trademark holders to seek redress against similar misuse of their brands on advertising platforms.
What Were the Court's Specific Directives?
- The Delhi High Court directed Google LLC and Google India to jointly pay Rs 30 lakh in nominal damages along with litigation costs, according to timesnownews.
- Google was ordered to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages to Hindware and bear the actual litigation costs, according to M Economictimes.
The court explicitly held both Google's global and Indian entities jointly responsible for the specific misuse of the 'Hindware' trademark in its ad platform. The court explicitly held both Google's global and Indian entities jointly responsible for the specific misuse of the 'Hindware' trademark in its ad platform, with this joint liability extending to associated legal costs, underscoring the court's view on platform accountability.
