A Delhi High Court decision has thrust Google’s core advertising model back into the spotlight. On May 22, Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that the search giant infringed the trademark of bathroom fittings maker Hindware. The court found Google liable for letting rivals bid on the brand name as a search keyword. It ordered the company to pay about $31,600 in nominal damages.
But the real story lies in the reaction. Indian founders seized the moment. They revived years of pent-up complaints about how Google’s ad system distorts competition. Founders Highlight Longstanding Grievances
Nithin Kamath, founder of brokerage Zerodha, has battled the issue for over a decade. He posted on X that when users search for “Zerodha,” traffic should flow to his site. Instead, the first results often show ads from competitors. “You create the brand. Someone else bids on it. Google takes the fee,” he noted, according to The Hindu.
Kamath added in comments reported by The Economic Times: “If you own a business and have a trademarked name for your business, you still have to pay Google just to hopefully make your name too expensive for your competition to run ads on it.” Short. Direct. And shared widely.
Sridhar Vembu, founder of Zoho, went further. “What Google was doing was completely unethical and I am glad it has been found illegal in India. They need to be held to account for these shady business practices,” he declared on X, as covered in the same Economic Times report. His words captured a sentiment many entrepreneurs echo privately but rarely voice so bluntly.
Anupam Mittal, founder of Shaadi.com, echoed the economic stakes. The ruling “could change the economics of online advertising for millions of businesses,” he said, per The Hindu.
The 163-page judgment pulls no punches. Justice Pushkarna rejected Google’s claim of acting as a mere passive intermediary. “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,” she wrote. The court noted “Hindware” isn’t a generic English word but a specific brand. By auctioning it, Google enabled rivals to divert legitimate traffic. And. It profited.
Details matter here. Google’s AdWords, now Google Ads, lets advertisers bid on keywords. When users type a term, relevant ads appear above or beside organic results. The system has powered Alphabet’s massive revenue for years. In India, a market with more internet users than any country except China, the stakes run especially high.
Yet the practice has long drawn fire. Brands spend to defend their own names. They bid defensively so competitors cannot outrank them. Fail to do so, and customers land on rival sites. The Hindware case laid bare how this mechanism works. Competitors used “Hindware” to trigger their ads. Users saw those promotions first. Sales shifted. Trust eroded.
Google pushed back. Its policy bars competitors from using trademarked terms in the actual ad text, the company noted. That safeguard applies worldwide. A 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 firm also said it would seek to clarify any overly broad aspects of the order, according to Reuters.
Lawyers struck a note of caution amid the excitement. The decision may not overhaul the industry overnight. Aprajita Rana, partner at AZB & Partners, told TechCrunch that platforms will likely review automated tools that suggest or auction trademarked terms. Still, she added the ruling lacks “far-reaching impact” on intermediary liability. Indian courts have already held that active participation in unlawful activity strips safe-harbor protections.
Even so, the verdict lands at a sensitive time. Regulators worldwide scrutinize Google’s ad tech stack. Antitrust cases in the U.S. and Europe target search dominance and ad market power. India’s fast-growing digital economy amplifies every local decision. A Rs 1 lakh crore-plus ad market now faces fresh uncertainty, experts told Moneycontrol.
Founders see opportunity. The judgment opens a clearer path for legal action. Brands that once accepted the status quo may now sue. They can argue Google actively facilitates infringement by designing and profiting from the keyword auction system. Traffic diversion no longer feels like an unavoidable cost of doing business online. It feels like theft enabled by algorithm.
But questions remain. How broadly will courts apply this logic? Will similar suits flood Indian dockets? And does the decision force Google to change its global policy, or just its Indian operations? For now, the company maintains compliance with local law. Founders, however, smell blood.
Recent coverage reinforces the momentum. A Yahoo Finance report from this week notes the ruling raises trademark risk for Google in India and could alter ad economics because brands routinely pay to protect their names. Discussions on X, captured in real-time searches, show entrepreneurs sharing the Hindware judgment and urging peers to audit their keyword defense budgets.
The case traces back years. Hindware sued after discovering rivals’ ads triggered by its trademark. The court examined Google’s role closely. It concluded the search firm doesn’t merely host content. It curates, auctions, and monetizes the use of protected terms. That active involvement crossed the line.
Industry watchers expect appeals. Google has deep resources and a history of litigating such matters across jurisdictions. Yet the public support from prominent founders shifts the narrative. What was once dismissed as sour grapes from smaller players now carries weight from leaders of Zerodha, Zoho, and Shaadi.com. Their collective voice amplifies the ruling far beyond legal circles.
Brands everywhere should watch closely. Defensive bidding inflates marketing costs. It distorts organic discovery. And it rewards platforms that profit from the conflict. If the Delhi decision inspires copycat litigation or policy tweaks, the math of search advertising could shift. Not dramatically in one stroke. But incrementally. One lawsuit at a time.
Google built an empire on relevance and revenue from intent. Users type what they want. Ads meet them there. The system works brilliantly for many. For trademark owners, however, it has created a parallel tax. Pay Google. Or watch competitors steal clicks. The Indian court called that arrangement infringement. Founders are now calling it out as unfair. The debate won’t fade quickly.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication