Sridhar Vembu calls Google unethical after Delhi High Court trademark ruling
Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu has slammed Google as "unethical" after the Delhi High Court held the tech giant liable for trademark infringement in the Hindware case. The ruling could have major implications for how online ads and brand keywords are handled in India.
Google is facing fresh criticism in India after the Delhi High Court held the company liable for trademark infringement in a major case involving sanitaryware brand Hindware. A few days after the judgment came out, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu publicly backed Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath and accused Google of following "completely unethical" practices through its advertising business.
"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 wrote on X.
The reaction came after the Delhi High Court ruled that Google's practice of allowing advertisers to buy trademarked brand names as keywords under Google Ads amounts to trademark infringement. The court also permanently restrained Google from using “HINDWARE” and similar variations as advertising keywords and ordered the company to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages to Hindware.
The case dates back more than a decade. Hindware had approached the court after discovering that rival brands such as Cera and Grohe were allegedly purchasing the keyword “HINDWARE” through Google’s advertising system. Because of this, users searching for Hindware products were often shown ads and links related to competing brands at the top of Google Search results.
According to the court, this practice unfairly diverted traffic away from Hindware and allowed competitors to benefit from the brand’s reputation and customer trust. Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that even if the trademark itself does not visibly appear in the advertisement, using it as a keyword trigger still qualifies as “use in advertising” under Indian trademark law.
The court further noted that “HINDWARE” is not a generic dictionary word but a unique and coined trademark. Because of that, any user searching for the term was specifically looking for Hindware products. The judgment said Google was effectively monetising the commercial value of a trademark it did not own by allowing advertisers to bid on it.
Google had argued that keywords are invisible backend tools and therefore should not count as trademark usage. However, the court rejected this argument and said that invisible keywords still form part of the advertising process because they trigger promotional content and influence search results shown to users.
Nithin Kamath says startups suffered for years because of Google
The ruling has received strong support from startup founders and business leaders who have long complained about keyword bidding practices. Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath said the issue has affected businesses for years, especially companies that choose not to advertise heavily on Google.
Kamath explained that when users search for “Zerodha,” the first few results are often sponsored links from competitors instead of Zerodha itself. According to him, this has likely caused major business losses over the years because potential customers are redirected before reaching the intended website.
He also talked about what he described as an ironic reality of online advertising. Many brands, he said, are forced to spend money bidding on their own company names simply to stop competitors from capturing their traffic. In effect, businesses end up paying Google to protect users who were already searching for them directly.
Kamath welcomed the Delhi High Court ruling and said it gives companies a legal route to challenge such practices in the future. He added that the decision could especially help startups, which already operate with limited resources and cannot afford to lose valuable traffic to bigger competitors.
The Zerodha founder also pointed out that similar issues exist on app stores, where competitor ads often appear around branded app searches. He argued that the impact there may be even bigger because users clicking on those ads often end up installing rival apps immediately.
The Delhi High Court judgment may now become an important reference point for future trademark disputes involving digital advertising in India. The court also rejected Google’s attempt to claim “safe harbor” protection under the IT Act, saying the company was not acting as a neutral intermediary because it actively profited from and managed the advertising system.
The judgment stated that Google’s advertising practices failed to follow “honest practices” in commercial matters and accused the company of encouraging advertisers to bid on competitors’ trademarks through its keyword planning tools.
Google is facing fresh criticism in India after the Delhi High Court held the company liable for trademark infringement in a major case involving sanitaryware brand Hindware. A few days after the judgment came out, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu publicly backed Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath and accused Google of following "completely unethical" practices through its advertising business.
"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 wrote on X.
The reaction came after the Delhi High Court ruled that Google's practice of allowing advertisers to buy trademarked brand names as keywords under Google Ads amounts to trademark infringement. The court also permanently restrained Google from using “HINDWARE” and similar variations as advertising keywords and ordered the company to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages to Hindware.
The case dates back more than a decade. Hindware had approached the court after discovering that rival brands such as Cera and Grohe were allegedly purchasing the keyword “HINDWARE” through Google’s advertising system. Because of this, users searching for Hindware products were often shown ads and links related to competing brands at the top of Google Search results.
According to the court, this practice unfairly diverted traffic away from Hindware and allowed competitors to benefit from the brand’s reputation and customer trust. Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that even if the trademark itself does not visibly appear in the advertisement, using it as a keyword trigger still qualifies as “use in advertising” under Indian trademark law.
The court further noted that “HINDWARE” is not a generic dictionary word but a unique and coined trademark. Because of that, any user searching for the term was specifically looking for Hindware products. The judgment said Google was effectively monetising the commercial value of a trademark it did not own by allowing advertisers to bid on it.
Google had argued that keywords are invisible backend tools and therefore should not count as trademark usage. However, the court rejected this argument and said that invisible keywords still form part of the advertising process because they trigger promotional content and influence search results shown to users.
Nithin Kamath says startups suffered for years because of Google
The ruling has received strong support from startup founders and business leaders who have long complained about keyword bidding practices. Zerodha CEO Nithin Kamath said the issue has affected businesses for years, especially companies that choose not to advertise heavily on Google.
Kamath explained that when users search for “Zerodha,” the first few results are often sponsored links from competitors instead of Zerodha itself. According to him, this has likely caused major business losses over the years because potential customers are redirected before reaching the intended website.
He also talked about what he described as an ironic reality of online advertising. Many brands, he said, are forced to spend money bidding on their own company names simply to stop competitors from capturing their traffic. In effect, businesses end up paying Google to protect users who were already searching for them directly.
Kamath welcomed the Delhi High Court ruling and said it gives companies a legal route to challenge such practices in the future. He added that the decision could especially help startups, which already operate with limited resources and cannot afford to lose valuable traffic to bigger competitors.
The Zerodha founder also pointed out that similar issues exist on app stores, where competitor ads often appear around branded app searches. He argued that the impact there may be even bigger because users clicking on those ads often end up installing rival apps immediately.
The Delhi High Court judgment may now become an important reference point for future trademark disputes involving digital advertising in India. The court also rejected Google’s attempt to claim “safe harbor” protection under the IT Act, saying the company was not acting as a neutral intermediary because it actively profited from and managed the advertising system.
The judgment stated that Google’s advertising practices failed to follow “honest practices” in commercial matters and accused the company of encouraging advertisers to bid on competitors’ trademarks through its keyword planning tools.
