The Ruling Already Landed. Now the Industry Is Responding.

On May 22, Delhi High Court Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled that Google was liable for trademark infringement. The court permanently restrained Google from selling 'HINDWARE' and close variants as ad keywords, and ordered ₹30 lakh — roughly $31,600 — in damages.

India's Biggest Tech Founders Are Speaking Out

On May 29, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu went public on X, backing Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath and calling Google's conduct 'completely unethical.' 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.'

Vembu built Zoho into a multi-billion dollar software company without venture capital funding. When he speaks, Indian tech pays attention.

Kamath's complaint centers on a specific problem. According to TechCrunch, Zerodha has dealt with competitors buying 'Zerodha' as a keyword for more than a decade — meaning users searching for Zerodha get served ads pointing them to rival companies instead. Kamath posted on X: 'Whenever someone searches for Zerodha, the traffic should rightfully come to Zerodha.'

The business model is straightforward: a company builds a brand over years, and Google sells that brand name to competitors. Every click costs the original brand money — either in lost traffic or in paying Google to defend its own name.

What Google Actually Said

A Google spokesperson told TechCrunch that its 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 company says it 'respects local laws' and works through legal processes when court orders are 'overbroad or inconsistent' with its policies.

Google's statement does not deny that competitors can bid on trademarked keywords. It only addresses what appears in the ad copy itself. A rival's ad for 'Zerodha' might never show the word explicitly — but that rival still purchased 'Zerodha' as the trigger keyword.

The Delhi High Court addressed this gap directly.

The Legal Logic Behind the Ruling

According to The Next Web, Justice Pushkarna found three things that stripped Google of its safe-harbor shield under Section 79 of India's IT Act:

1. Google's Keyword Planner tool actively suggested trademarked terms to advertisers.
2. Google ran the auctions that priced those terms.
3. Google earned revenue on every click those keywords generated.

This is active participation, not passive intermediary behavior. The court held that a platform which 'algorithmically decides who gets shown and profits from the decision' does not receive neutral-pipe legal protection.

The Next Web noted something mainstream coverage has largely overlooked: this logic could theoretically apply to any algorithm that shapes what users see — ad targeting, content recommendations, search ranking. If shaping outcomes means losing safe harbor, Google's entire algorithmic ad empire faces questions in India.

Why India Matters for Google

India has more internet users than any country on earth except China, according to TechCrunch. Google dominates Indian search, and its ad revenue from the region is substantial and growing.

Indian courts have been increasingly willing to hold American tech platforms to local standards. This ruling came from a judge who wrote 163 pages explaining exactly why Google's defense failed, not from a regulatory body Google could lobby.

The companies that originally bought the 'Hindware' keyword — rivals Cera and Grohe — settled. Google fought this alone, turning what India Today describes as 'a routine trademark spat' into a landmark platform liability test. Google lost.

What's Being Overlooked

Most tech coverage is treating this as an interesting India-specific legal quirk. The founders speaking up — Vembu and Kamath — suggest otherwise. Expect more litigation.

The $31,600 damages are irrelevant as a figure. What matters is the permanent injunction and the safe-harbor analysis it rested on. That's the precedent.

Google's response also deserves scrutiny. The company's trademark policy has a documented gap between what can appear in ad text and what can be purchased as a keyword trigger. The court addressed that gap. Google's spokesperson did not.

What Comes Next

Google built a business where companies must pay to defend their own names in search results or watch competitors buy their customers' attention. India's courts called that infringement. India's most respected tech founders called it unethical.

The damages figure is minor. The legal reasoning is not. If it holds on appeal and spreads across Indian courts, every brand operating in India — and every platform selling their names to rivals — will recalculate.