What Actually Happened

On May 22, 2026, Delhi High Court Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered a 163-page judgment holding Google liable for trademark infringement in a case that had been grinding through the courts since 2013-2014, according to The Tech Portal.

The plaintiff: Hindware Limited, an Indian sanitaryware brand. The problem: competitors Cera Sanitaryware and Grohe India — assisted by digital agency Omkara Infoweb — had been buying keywords like "HINDWARE," "HINDWARE SANITARY," and "HINDWARE SANITARYWARE" through Google Ads. When users searched for Hindware, sponsored links for rival brands appeared first.

Hindware eventually settled with Cera, Grohe, and Omkara. That left Google as the sole defendant — and turned a routine trademark dispute into a direct test of platform liability.

Google's Defense

Google argued it was a neutral intermediary. Advertisers pick the keywords. Google runs the auction. Not Google's responsibility.

Justice Pushkarna rejected the argument.

The court found, according to The Next Web, that Google actively suggested trademarked terms through its Keyword Planner tool, ran the auctions that priced them, ranked the resulting ads through its own algorithms, and collected revenue every time a user clicked a sponsored link triggered by someone else's trademark. The judge ruled that using a trademark as a keyword qualifies as use "in advertising" under Indian trademark law — even when the trademarked word never visibly appears in the ad itself.

The Safe Harbor Ruling

Under Section 79 of India's Information Technology Act, platforms are shielded from liability for what their users do — the same legal concept as Section 230 in the U.S. Google relied on this protection.

The court stripped it away.

Justice Pushkarna ruled, per The Next Web, that Google forfeits safe harbor when it algorithmically decides who gets shown and profits from that decision. The court also found Google's policy of not investigating trademarked keywords was itself a failure of due diligence.

The legal reasoning: a platform that actively shapes outcomes is no longer a neutral pipe. It's a participant. And participants are liable.

If that reasoning spreads to other courts and jurisdictions, it could apply beyond keyword ads. It could affect any algorithm that selects what users see and monetizes the result — which describes most of digital advertising.

Indian Tech Founders Weigh In

The judgment resonated in India's startup world.

Zerodha founder Nithin Kamath went public on X, describing how the problem had affected his company for over a decade: "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," according to TechCrunch.

Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu was more direct. Per India Today, Vembu wrote: "I am with Nithin on this. 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."

Kamath built Zerodha into India's largest retail brokerage. Vembu built Zoho into a global software company from Tamil Nadu. Criticism from founders at that level carries weight.

Google's Response

Google's spokesperson told TechCrunch the company's Ads policy "does not allow competitor advertisers to use trademarked terms in the ad-text of an ad" and that the policy "is applied globally."

The spokesperson added Google "respects local laws" and works through legal processes when court orders are "overbroad or inconsistent" with its policies.

Notably, Google's stated policy bans trademarked terms in the ad text itself — but the court found the violation happens at the keyword bidding stage, before the ad text is even written. Google's defense and the court's finding were addressing different things.

What Matters

Most coverage has focused on the ₹30 lakh ($31,600) damages award. Google generates that revenue in seconds globally.

The significant part is the safe harbor precedent. Every major platform — Google, Meta, Amazon — depends on the legal theory that they're neutral conduits for third-party content and commerce. This ruling says that theory breaks down once the platform's algorithm actively curates, ranks, and monetizes outcomes.

The decision raises questions about Google's search ranking algorithm, Meta's ad targeting, and Amazon's practice of promoting its own products over third-party sellers.

What It Means

If you run a brand in India, this ruling provides legal recourse. Competitors buying your name as a keyword to divert your traffic is now established as infringement — and Google can be held liable, not just the advertiser.

Small business owners have paid Google to defend their own brand names in search results for years. The court just formalized that issue.

For Google shareholders, the fine itself is negligible. A binding Indian appellate ruling that strips platform safe harbor based on algorithmic curation in the world's second-largest internet market carries different weight.