An Indian court ruling against Google’s keyword advertising practices is giving startup founders and business leaders a new reason to challenge one of the company’s most profitable ad tools.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Google infringed the trademark rights of bathroom fittings maker Hindware by allowing rival companies to use “Hindware” as a keyword to target their own ads. The May 22 ruling gained fresh attention after Indian entrepreneurs argued that competitors have long used Google’s system to divert traffic from established brands.
Delhi High Court orders damages against Google
The case centers on Google’s AdWords system, where advertisers can bid on search keywords.
Reuters reported that the court ordered Google to pay damages of $31,600 after finding that rival companies of Hindware were allowed to use the Hindware name as an advertising keyword.
In her 163-page judgment, Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected Google’s position that it was only a passive intermediary in serving ads.
TechCrunch reported that the judge found Google allowed Hindware’s rivals to use “Hindware” as a keyword to target users searching for the brand.
The court said Google’s AdWords policy showed that Google sold or auctioned the use of a trademark without authorization from the trademark owner.
Founders say brands are forced to defend their own names
The ruling drew support from Indian entrepreneurs who said the practice has created unfair costs for businesses.
Nithin Kamath, founder of brokerage firm Zerodha, said his company had faced the issue for more than a decade. Kamath argued that when someone searches for “Zerodha,” the traffic should go to Zerodha, but the first results are often ads leading customers to competitors.
Kamath said that the ruling “now opens up a route for legal recourse” for companies facing similar problems.
The reaction went beyond Zerodha. Anupam Mittal, founder of Indian matchmaking company Shaadi.com, shared that businesses create the brand, competitors bid on it, and Google collects the fee. He said the ruling could change the economics of online advertising for millions of businesses.
Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu publicly backed the ruling, adding to the growing founder criticism of Google’s keyword ad model.
Google says its policy protects trademark terms in ad text
Google defended its advertising policy.
Google said its Ads policy on trademark keywords does not allow competitor advertisers to use trademarked terms in the actual ad text, and that the policy is applied globally.
A Google spokesperson shared that the company looks forward to aligning operations with local legal frameworks while maintaining standards to protect users’ long-term interests.
Google did not respond to its request for comment. The difference shows that public details around the case are still developing, especially as legal and business communities react to the ruling.
Legal experts say impact may be narrower
While startup founders see the ruling as a major moment, legal experts are more cautious.
Aprajita Rana, a partner at AZB & Partners, said that the judgment may require platforms to review whether automated tools encourage or offer trademarked terms to advertisers.
However, Rana also shared that the ruling may not have a far-reaching impact on platform liability in India because courts have already established that internet companies can lose legal protections when they play an active role in unlawful activity.
Her point suggests the case may matter most when platforms are found to be actively participating in the ad process rather than merely hosting third-party content.
India is a critical market for Google
The ruling is especially important because India is one of Google’s most important markets.
Google counts India as one of its most critical markets. India has more internet users than any country except China, making court decisions affecting Google’s search and advertising businesses particularly significant.
If more Indian businesses use this ruling to challenge keyword bidding on brand names, Google could face more pressure over how its ad tools handle trademarks. For startups and smaller companies, the issue is not just legal. It is financial. They argue that Google’s system can force brands to pay for ads simply to appear above competitors when users search for their own names.
The case now raises a bigger question for digital advertising: should search platforms be allowed to profit when competitors bid on another company’s trademark, or does that turn brand reputation into something rivals can buy access to?
