Hindware relied heavily on the strength of its brand and prior recognition of HINDWARE as a well‑known trademark by the Delhi High Court in earlier litigation.
It traced its use of the mark to 1991.
The company argued that Google’s sale and suggestion of HINDWARE as a keyword to competitors, without its consent, amounted to use in advertising within Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, even if the mark did not appear visibly in the advertisement text.
It contended that Google was at the epicenter of infringement because it runs the keyword auction, suggests trademarks via its keyword planner, ranks ads and derives assured revenue whenever advertisers bid on trademarked terms.
Hindware argued that use of an identical mark for identical goods (sanitaryware) on a search triggered by HINDWARE necessarily caused confusion to an average consumer of ordinary prudence.
Hindware relied heavily on the strength of its brand and prior recognition of HINDWARE as a well‑known trademark by the Delhi High Court in earlier litigation. It traced its use of the mark to 1991.
The company argued that Google’s sale and suggestion of HINDWARE as a keyword to competitors, without its consent, amounted to use in advertising within Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, even if the mark did not appear visibly in the advertisement text.
It contended that Google was at the epicenter of infringement because it runs the keyword auction, suggests trademarks via its keyword planner, ranks ads and derives assured revenue whenever advertisers bid on trademarked terms.
Hindware argued that use of an identical mark for identical goods (sanitaryware) on a search triggered by HINDWARE necessarily caused confusion to an average consumer of ordinary prudence.
