On this page · 11 sections
- Where the Hindware appeal stands on 7 November 2026
- What is decided and what is still open
- What Google is arguing on appeal
- How the Division Bench could rule
- Can rivals still bid on your brand in India today?
- What brand owners should do while the appeals are pending
- What advertisers and agencies should do
- A monitoring routine for 2027
- If you also advertise in the US or EU
- How eCorpIT can help
- References
Summary. There is no appeal judgment yet. On 22 May 2026 Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court held Google LLC and Google India liable for infringing the HINDWARE trademark through keyword advertising, restrained them from using HINDWARE and three listed variations as advertising keywords, and awarded nominal damages of ₹15 lakh in each of two suits (₹30 lakh in all) plus actual costs. Google LLC and Google India have filed four connected appeals, led by RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2026. On 10 July a Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notice, declined interim relief and listed the appeals for 24 July, as LiveLaw and Bar & Bench reported. The court's cause lists show the batch listed again on 17 August, 17 September and, before a Joint Registrar, 6 November 2026. We found no Division Bench judgment up to 7 November 2026, so the single judge's decree stands. That is not a ban on brand bidding in India: the injunction protects one mark, and Google's Trademarks policy still says it will not restrict trademarks used as keywords. Until the bench rules, brand owners should document competitor bidding, and advertisers should keep rival marks, especially coined ones, out of keyword lists and ad copy.
About this article. For brand owners, counsel, advertisers and agencies running paid search in India. On 7 November 2026 we read the single judge's judgment of 22 May 2026 in CS(COMM) 591/2017 and 592/2017, and searched the Delhi High Court's public cause lists for most working days from 24 July to 16 November 2026. We read no Division Bench order, because the court's case-status and order search sits behind a captcha, so what happened at each hearing comes from named law reporting, attributed as reported. We also checked Google's policy and help pages and the Eleventh Circuit's Deltona opinion. This is general information, not legal advice; confirm the current listing before you act. No one paid for inclusion. Researched with AI assistance and reviewed by our editorial team.
Where the Hindware appeal stands on 7 November 2026
Our first analysis of the May 2026 Hindware v Google ruling explains the single-judge judgment. This update covers what has happened since, what is still open and what brands and agencies can do meanwhile.
The dates below come from the judgment, the court's cause lists and the reports cited in this section.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 22 May 2026 | Single judge decrees both suits against Google LLC and Google India: keyword injunction, ₹30 lakh nominal damages, actual costs | Delhi High Court judgment |
| 7 Jul 2026 | Google's appeal filed, a 4,761-page challenge according to MediaNama | MediaNama |
| 10 Jul 2026 | Division Bench issues notice, declines interim relief, asks for written submissions, lists the matter for 24 July | LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, LegalEra |
| 24 Jul 2026 | RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2026 listed with appeals 15, 16 and 17 of 2026 before Court 37, marked for disposal | Delhi High Court cause list |
| 4 Aug 2026 | US Eleventh Circuit holds in Deltona v NOCO that keyword bidding alone does not infringe | Eleventh Circuit opinion |
| 17 Aug 2026 | Batch listed again before the same bench | Delhi High Court cause list |
| 17 Sep 2026 | Batch listed before a Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora | Delhi High Court cause list |
| 6 Nov 2026 | Batch listed before a Joint Registrar, with other pending matters, under a heading for referral to the court's special mediation drive | Delhi High Court cause list |
| 7 Nov 2026 | No Division Bench judgment found in the court's pronouncement lists | Our check |
Three points matter most. First, there is no stay. Bar & Bench reported that the bench refused interim relief on 10 July, and Indian Television, citing LiveLaw, reported that it declined to stay the judgment. LawBeat reported that Google told the court it had already applied the blocking the decree requires, without changing its wider policies. LegalEra reported that execution of the damages was left for a later hearing.
Second, this is a batch, not a single appeal. The cause lists show four appeals against Hindware Limited and others: RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2026 and 15/2026 filed by Google LLC, and 16/2026 and 17/2026 filed by Google India Private Limited, listed together with 14/2026 first. LegalEra reported that the bench directed Google's appeal to be treated as the lead matter.
Third, a listing is not a judgment date. The cause lists show when the batch was listed, not what happened, and we found no report of any hearing after 10 July. The 6 November entry sat in a Joint Registrar's list of pending matters, mostly commercial appeals, headed for referral to the court's special mediation drive; it records no outcome. The public PDF cause lists can be searched for RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2026.
What is decided and what is still open
The findings below come from the judgment, and Google's positions from the July reporting.
| Question | Single judge, 22 May 2026 | Position on 7 Nov 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Is an invisible keyword use in advertising? | Yes. A mark need not appear in the ad to be used in advertising under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act | Under appeal; Google calls a keyword a backend trigger |
| Is consumer confusion required? | No. Liability rests on Section 29(8), unfair advantage contrary to honest practices, which needs no proof of confusion | Under appeal; Google's counsel stressed there is no confusion finding |
| Does Google keep Section 79 safe harbour? | No. Keyword Planner suggestions, the auction, Quality Score and click revenue make Google an active participant | Under appeal |
| Are coined marks treated differently? | HINDWARE is a coined word with no dictionary meaning; earlier cases involved generic words | Google is expected to argue the Act draws no such line |
| Keyword injunction | Google restrained from using HINDWARE, HINDWARE SANITARYWARE, HINDWARE SANITARY, HINDWARE SANITARYWARE INDIA or combinations as keywords | In force; interim relief declined on 10 July |
| Damages and costs | ₹30 lakh, described as nominal, payable within eight weeks, plus actual costs | Under appeal |
| Other brands | Not covered by the injunction | Unchanged; each owner needs its own case |
The bench's only reported comment on the merits came when Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel for Google, pressed for interim protection because the single judge had made no finding of confusion. LiveLaw reported that the bench said it was expressing no view on confusion, while remarking that confusion appeared to be present, and that it would keep an open mind. That was an oral remark at the notice stage, not a finding. It does signal that confusion, and whether Section 29(8) can carry liability without it, will be argued.
What Google is arguing on appeal
Google's appeal papers are not public. MediaNama, Business Standard and LiveLaw reported these grounds from the filing, documents reviewed by Reuters and the 10 July hearing:
- A keyword is a backend trigger. Google says a keyword only triggers the display of an ad and that it simply makes advertising space available. Singhvi put the question as whether using a mark purely as a search trigger is infringement in itself.
- No finding of confusion. Singhvi told the bench that two earlier Division Bench decisions hold that trigger use without confusion is not infringement.
- Consumers search brands to compare. Google argues the ruling hands trademark owners control of advertising space at consumers' expense.
- Coined and generic marks are equal under the Act. Business Standard reported that Google is expected to contest the single judge's distinction between a coined mark and a dictionary word.
- Precedent and practice. Google plans to rely on earlier Delhi High Court, Supreme Court and Competition Commission of India decisions, and says the ruling makes India the only outlier among jurisdictions worldwide.
The earlier Indian cases point in different directions. In DRS Logistics, a single judge in 2021 and a Division Bench in 2023, at the interim stage, held that keyword use is use of the mark and that Google, prima facie, could not claim safe harbour. In MakeMyTrip v Booking.com, a Division Bench on 14 December 2023 declined interim relief, finding users unlikely to be misled; Business Standard reports the Supreme Court upheld that order in March 2024 without examining the merits. In September 2023 a single judge rejected PolicyBazaar's keyword claim against Coverfox. The single judge distinguished these cases on the ground that HINDWARE is a coined word, and that DRS Logistics and MakeMyTrip were interim rulings on marks built from generic words.
The US ruling Google can now point to
On 4 August 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The NOCO Company that bidding on a rival's mark as a keyword does not infringe on its own, because the shopper never sees the mark, and it joined the Second, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits. Writing in Bar & Bench, Nilanshu Shekhar of KAnalysis notes its limits: the case concerned an advertiser bidding on Amazon, Amazon was not a party, and no intermediary or safe-harbour question arose. He points to the EU Court of Justice rulings in Google France and Interflora as the closer comparators on platform liability. A US judgment binds no Indian court; it is persuasive material only.
How the Division Bench could rule
This is our reading of the options, not a prediction. Either side can then seek special leave to appeal, which the Supreme Court grants at its discretion.
| Outcome | What it would mean for brand owners | What it would mean for advertisers and agencies |
|---|---|---|
| Upholds in full | A tested route against platforms for coined marks | Bidding on a rival's coined mark for identical goods carries real infringement risk |
| Reverses on use or confusion | Back to the MakeMyTrip position: keyword use alone is not enough without confusion | Competitor bidding with clean ad copy returns to lower risk; ad text stays the danger zone |
| Upholds liability on these facts but narrows the reasoning | Helps owners of coined, well-known marks in identical-goods disputes; weaker for descriptive marks | Case by case; coined marks and look-alike ads remain the main exposure |
The Section 79 question reaches beyond Google Ads. MediaNama notes that the single judge's test, that a platform loses safe harbour when it decides by algorithm who receives information and profits from it, could reach ad targeting, recommendations and sponsored posts.
Can rivals still bid on your brand in India today?
On the platform, yes. Google's Trademarks policy, checked on 7 November 2026, says Google Ads and Display & Video 360 will not restrict trademarks used as keywords. They will restrict a trademark used in an ad from a direct competitor, or used in a confusing, deceptive or misleading way. Complaints are accepted only against specific advertisers identified by URL, in the countries and industries where the owner has shown trademark rights, and restrictions then apply to ads sharing that second-level domain in their final URL.
In law, an advertiser's exposure depends on the mark and the ad. This ladder is our reading of the cases above:
| Practice | Risk while the appeals are pending | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Rival's mark in your headline or description | High | Google restricts it on complaint, and visible use is the classic infringement case |
| Rival's coined mark as a keyword, identical goods, neutral ad copy | Elevated | This is the Hindware fact pattern, and the decree has not been stayed |
| Rival's descriptive or dictionary-word mark as a keyword, your brand clearly shown | Lower | MakeMyTrip turned on the absence of confusion, and the single judge treated generic marks as different |
| Broad match or AI expansion serving on a rival's brand query you never chose | Low but avoidable | Negative keywords and search-term reviews show you took care |
MediaNama, citing Reuters, puts Google's gross advertising revenue in India last year at $4.1 billion, so the ₹30 lakh award matters less than the precedent.
What brand owners should do while the appeals are pending
- Capture evidence weekly. Search your brand and its variants from several Indian cities and devices, and save dated screenshots of the query, ad text, display URL and landing page, repeated over weeks.
- Run your own brand campaign and read Auction insights. The report shows which advertisers enter the same auctions, with overlap rate, outranking share and position above rate. It shows no insights when impression share is below 10%, so keep enough brand coverage to see who is there.
- File ad-text complaints where they apply. If a rival uses your mark in ad copy, Google's complaint route can restrict it. It will not stop keyword selection.
- Write to the advertiser first. In Hindware, Grohe, Cera and Omkara Infoweb all settled, leaving Google as the only contesting defendant. A notice from counsel to a bidder is often quicker than litigation.
- Register and evidence your marks. The single judge's reasoning leaned on HINDWARE being coined and distinctive. Keep registrations current and gather proof of distinctiveness and reputation.
- Weigh timing with counsel. Unless the harm is acute, there may be value in waiting for the Division Bench judgment.
- Be careful with mutual no-bid deals. Agreeing with competitors not to bid on each other's marks can raise competition-law questions; the Bar & Bench viewpoint notes that such agreements drew a Federal Trade Commission challenge in the US. Take advice before signing one.
What advertisers and agencies should do
- Audit keywords and search terms. List every third-party mark in your keyword lists and in the search terms report. Flag coined marks first; they carry the Hindware risk.
- Build an account-level competitor negative list. Google says an account-level negative list applies to all eligible Search and Shopping inventory, including Performance Max. Add singular, plural and synonym forms: negatives handle casing and misspellings automatically, but they do not match close variants.
- Watch automated matching. Broad match and AI-driven expansion can serve on a rival's brand query you never chose. Our AI Max migration guide covers the settings that matter, and the AI Mode ads playbook for India covers the newer surfaces where brand queries now show ads.
- Keep rival marks out of ad copy. Google restricts this use on complaint, and it is the easiest to prove.
- Put competitor bidding in writing. If a client asks you to target a rival's brand, record the instruction, the terms and the review date, and log when you add negatives or pause terms.
- Budget for brand defence. If rivals keep bidding on your client's brand, a brand campaign protects the top slot whatever the court decides.
A monitoring routine for 2027
| Cadence | Task | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly | Brand results screenshots from several Indian cities; search terms review; Auction insights on brand campaigns | Paid search lead |
| Monthly | Update the competitor negative list; follow up open complaints and notices; search the Delhi High Court cause lists for RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2026 and check LiveLaw and Bar & Bench | Paid search lead with legal |
| Quarterly | Re-read Google's Trademarks policy for any India-specific change | Agency or in-house counsel |
| On judgment day | Read the operative order, note whether the bench decides confusion and Section 79, then update keyword and complaint policies within a week | Marketing head with counsel |
If you also advertise in the US or EU
In the US, after Deltona v NOCO, keyword bidding alone does not infringe in the circuits that have ruled on it, but visible use still can: NOCO's use of the mark in its Amazon ads and product descriptions was held to infringe. In the EU, the Bar & Bench viewpoint notes that Interflora developed a free-riding rationale for marks with a reputation, which is closer to the Delhi reasoning than the US approach. Google's separate US search antitrust appeal is a competition case, not a trademark one; our piece on the Google antitrust appeal in 2027 covers what it means for paid search.
How eCorpIT can help
eCorpIT is a Gurugram-based technology organisation, founded in 2021, assessed at CMMI Level 5 and MSME certified, with senior-led engineering teams working across AWS, Microsoft and Google platforms. Our performance marketing services team can run the routine above, from weekly brand results capture and Auction insights tracking to account-level competitor negative lists and evidence packs your counsel can use, alongside your lawyers rather than in place of them. Talk to us at /contact-us/.
Last updated: 7 November 2026.
