Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name? Google Ads, Trademark Keywords and Well-Known Marks

Somewhere right now, a competitor may be paying Google to show its advertisement whenever customers search your brand name. Whether that stays lawful in India is being decided in a Delhi High Court appeal that Google itself says could change how search advertising works: the Hindware keywords matter, in which the court ruled against the platform and a division bench issued notice on Google's appeal on 10 July 2026. The same week produced a second development every brand owner should know: the 'Ghostbuster' ruling, holding that a mark does not need a formal "well-known" declaration to receive protection across product classes. This guide explains the law of keyword advertising and trademark use in India, what the two July 2026 developments change, how well-known mark protection actually works under Sections 11 and 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, and the concrete monitoring-and-enforcement playbook for a brand of any size.

Part of the intellectual property practice at S Jain & Attorneys, Bangalore.

Key takeaway. While the keyword question is on appeal, the winning move for brand owners is evidence and registration, not waiting. Search your own brand in an incognito window this week, screenshot rival ads with dates, and make sure your registrations cover the classes you trade in. Whatever the division bench decides, documented goodwill wins cases; undocumented indignation does not.

How keyword advertising collides with trademark law

Search-engine advertising lets any advertiser bid on any search term, including a rival's registered trademark. The customer types a brand they trust; the results page serves them the competition, marked "Sponsored", above the organic result they were looking for. The trademark questions this raises under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are three:

• Is bidding on a mark as an invisible keyword "use" of the mark "in the course of trade" and "in advertising" under Sections 29(6) and 29(8)?
• Does it cause the confusion, or take the unfair advantage of repute, that Sections 29(2) and 29(4) prohibit?
• And what is the platform's own responsibility, as the seller of the keyword, when a proprietor complains?

Indian courts have circled these questions for years, and one judgment now anchors the field. In Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. and Others, decided on 10 August 2023 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and 22/2022, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld a single judge's order of 30 October 2021 and held that the use of trademarks as keywords in the Google Ads Programme does amount to use in advertising under the Act. The single judge had got there by reading Sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c), which describe what "use of a mark" means and which, for services, extend it to use of the mark as or as part of any statement about the availability or provision of those services, together with Sections 29(6), 29(7), 29(8) and 29(9). Invisible use, in other words, can still be use. The Division Bench also saw no infirmity in the finding that if the platform is shown to have infringed or to be contributorily liable, the intermediary safe harbour in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not rescue it.

What the single judge actually ordered is the part brand owners should memorise, because it is the lever you pull before you sue. Subject to the final decision in the suit, the platform was directed to:

• investigate any complaint by the proprietor alleging use of its trademark and variations as keywords resulting in diversion of traffic from the proprietor's website to the advertiser's;
• investigate and review the overall effect of the advertisement, to see whether it infringes or passes off the proprietor's mark; and
• where it does, restrain the advertiser and remove or block the advertisement.

Common mistake. Reading DRS Logistics as a rule that bidding on a competitor's brand is automatically unlawful. It is not. The Division Bench was careful to say that a sponsored link which merely generates interest, without a real likelihood of confusion, does not infringe, and it warned against conflating ordinary initial interest with the doctrine of initial interest confusion. Your case still has to show confusion, diversion, or unfair advantage taken of repute. The keyword is the mechanism; it is not by itself the wrong.

The Hindware matter pushed the line further against the platform, and it is that ruling Google has now appealed, telling the appellate bench the decision could change how search ads work in India. The appeal is pending; no prediction belongs in print. What can be said is that the direction of Indian authority has been steadily more protective of proprietors than the position advertisers assume.

The statutory framework, section by section

Keyword disputes are argued in the language of a handful of provisions. Knowing which one your facts actually fit is the difference between a notice that lands and a notice that gets filed away.

• Section 28 confers the right. A valid registration gives the proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark for the goods or services registered, and to obtain relief for infringement.
• Sections 29(1) and 29(2) are the confusion limbs. Where both the mark and the goods or services are identical, Section 29(3) requires the court to presume a likelihood of confusion. That presumption is the single most valuable thing a registration buys you in an interim application.
• Section 29(4) is the dilution limb and needs no confusion at all. It applies where the marks are identical or similar, the goods or services are not similar, the registered mark has a reputation in India, and use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the mark's distinctive character or repute.
• Section 29(6)(d) is the keyword hinge: a person uses a registered mark if, among other things, he uses it on business papers or in advertising.
• Section 29(8) makes the advertising itself infringing where it takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, is detrimental to the mark's distinctive character, or is against its reputation. This is the provision that catches ad copy, as distinct from the invisible keyword behind it.
• Section 29(9) confirms that where a mark consists of words, it can be infringed by spoken use as well as by visual representation. That reasoning is part of why non-visual, invisible use was held capable of infringing.
• Section 30 is the defence side, and advertisers should read it before their agencies do. Section 30(1) permits use of a mark to identify the proprietor's own goods or services, provided the use is in accordance with honest practices and does not take unfair advantage of or damage the mark. Comparative advertising, spare-parts references and genuine resale arguments live here.
• Section 27 bars an infringement suit for an unregistered mark but expressly preserves the action for passing off.
• Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11 carry the well-known mark machinery, discussed next.
• Sections 134 and 135 are forum and remedy. Section 134(2) lets the proprietor sue where it actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain, which is why so many brand suits are filed in Delhi, Mumbai or Bengaluru rather than at the infringer's doorstep. Section 135 sets out the relief: injunction, and at the plaintiff's option either damages or an account of profits, with or without delivery up for destruction. Section 135(2) expressly contemplates ex parte injunctions, discovery, preservation of evidence and orders restraining a defendant from dealing with assets.
• Sections 101 to 105, with Section 115 on cognizance and police search and seizure, create the criminal route for falsifying and falsely applying marks. It is rarely the right tool for a pure keyword dispute, but it matters for the counterfeit listings that often sit alongside one.

One provision deserves a warning label. Section 135(3)(b) denies damages or an account of profits, beyond nominal damages, where the defendant satisfies the court that when it began using the mark it was unaware and had no reasonable ground to believe the mark was registered, and that it stopped forthwith on learning of the right. In plain terms, an innocent-adopter defence is available until you tell them. The day your notice is delivered is the day that defence stops running, which is why a dated, properly served cease-and-desist is not a formality but the foundation of any later money claim.

The 'Ghostbuster' ruling: cross-class protection without the formal tag

Trademark registration is organised into 45 classes of goods and services, and protection ordinarily runs class by class: registering a mark for software does not by itself stop a mattress company using the same word. The great exception is the well-known mark. Under Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11(2), a mark whose reputation is such that use on unrelated goods would suggest a connection gets protection across classes, and Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 even created a formal procedure to have a mark declared well-known and entered on the registry's list.

The July 2026 'Ghostbuster' decision of the Delhi High Court answered the question that procedure created: is the formal declaration a precondition? No. A court can extend cross-class protection on reputation proved in evidence, without the mark ever having been through the Rule 124 process. The statute itself points the same way. Section 11(8) provides that where a mark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or the Registrar, the Registrar shall treat it as well-known. Section 11(9) then lists what a proprietor need not prove: that the mark has been used in India, that it has been registered, that an application has been filed in India, or that it is well-known or registered anywhere else. Two practical consequences flow in opposite directions:

• For established brands: your protection may already reach further than your registrations. Sales figures, advertising spend, media coverage and consumer recognition, proved properly, can stop a free-rider in a class you never registered in.
• For new brands choosing names: a clearance search limited to your own class is no longer enough. The name you are about to adopt may collide with a reputation registered nowhere near your class, and "their registration is in class 9, we are in class 25" is not the safe harbour founders assume.

If you are building the evidence file, build it to the shape of Section 11(6) and 11(7), because that is the checklist a tribunal works through: knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant section of the public, including recognition obtained through promotion; the duration, extent and geographical area of use; the duration, extent and geographical area of promotion, advertising, publicity and presentation at fairs and exhibitions; the duration and geographical spread of registrations and applications so far as they reflect use or recognition; and the record of successful enforcement, in particular any earlier recognition of the mark as well-known by a court or the Registrar. Section 11(7) adds that the relevant section of the public is measured by actual and potential consumers, the persons in the channels of distribution, and the business circles dealing with those goods or services. A file assembled against those five heads is worth more than any amount of assertion.

Infringement vs passing off: which case are you actually filing?

Most serious brand suits plead both. If your mark is unregistered, passing off is your only sword, which is itself the strongest argument for registering now rather than after the fight starts. Our practice-side overview of registration strategy, classes and enforcement sits in the standing guide to trademark infringement in India; this article extends it into the keyword and well-known-mark battlefield of 2026.

The brand-owner playbook while the appeal is pending

Run this in order. Each step both fixes the immediate problem and builds the record for the next step, which is why skipping to the end is usually the expensive route.

1. Audit your brand's search results, monthly. Incognito window, your brand name, your product names, and the common misspellings. Capture full-page screenshots that show the date, the search query and the advertiser's display URL, and save the ad's landing page too. Many owners discover the problem months and lakhs late, then find they cannot prove when it started.
2. Check your own register position before you complain. Pull your registration certificates and confirm the classes, the mark as registered (word mark and device separately), the renewal status and the registered proprietor's name. Enforcement arguments start from certificates, and a lapsed renewal discovered mid-dispute is a self-inflicted wound.
3. Fix the gaps in your portfolio in parallel. File for the classes you actually trade in and the ones you are plausibly expanding into, and file the word mark and the logo as separate applications. Rights relate back to the application date, so filing today is worth more than filing after the notice.
4. Use the platform's trademark complaint route first. Google operates a trademark complaint process for advertisements. After DRS Logistics, this step does double duty: it may get the ad pulled, and a complaint that goes uninvestigated becomes evidence in your case against the platform as well as the advertiser. Keep the complaint reference numbers and every reply.
5. Send a cease-and-desist through counsel, with the evidence annexed. Address it to the advertiser, not the agency alone, and be specific: the keyword, the dates, the screenshots, the registration numbers, the provisions relied on. Many competitor-brand campaigns are agency defaults rather than strategy, and a properly drafted notice ends a surprising number of them. Remember Section 135(3)(b): service of this notice is what forecloses the innocent-adopter defence.
6. Quantify the diversion before you decide to sue. Pull your own analytics: branded search impression share, click-through rate on your brand terms before and after the rival campaign started, and the cost-per-click you are now paying to defend your own name. This is the material that turns "they are stealing our traffic" into a number a judge can work with.
7. Take advice on pre-institution mediation. An intellectual property suit above the specified value is a commercial dispute, and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires pre-institution mediation unless the suit contemplates urgent interim relief. The Supreme Court in M/s Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (17 August 2022) held the requirement mandatory. Whether your case is framed as one needing urgent relief is a decision to take with counsel, not a box to tick.
8. File the suit where you carry on business. Section 134(2) gives you that choice. Plead infringement and passing off together, and file the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 along with the plaint, supported by the screenshots and the analytics.
9. Treat the interim stage as the whole war. In practice most keyword and brand disputes are decided by what happens at the first two or three hearings. Section 135(2) lets the court order discovery, preservation of evidence and asset protection at that stage; ask for what you actually need rather than a standard prayer clause.
10. Preserve reputation evidence continuously, not reactively. Year-wise sales, advertising spend with invoices, press coverage, awards, distribution reach, follower counts and survey data. After 'Ghostbuster', this file is what cross-class protection is made of, and it cannot be assembled retrospectively in a hurry.

What it costs and how long it takes

Every figure below is indicative and varies with the city, the seniority of counsel and how hard the other side fights. Treat them as a planning range, not a quotation.

• Trademark filing. Government fees are fixed by the First Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, are charged per mark per class, are lower for e-filing than physical filing, and are concessional for individuals, startups and small enterprises. Confirm the current figure on the IP India portal before you budget, because the schedule is revised from time to time. Professional fees for drafting and filing a straightforward application typically run in the region of a few thousand to around twenty thousand rupees per class.
• Registration timeline. Roughly 8 to 18 months if the application is not objected to or opposed, with rights relating back to the application date. An examination report adds a few months; a full opposition can add two to four years.
• Cease-and-desist notice. Usually a single professional fee in the low tens of thousands of rupees, and by a wide margin the best value in this entire list. A meaningful share of keyword disputes end here.
• Suit with an interim injunction application. Court fees are governed by the relevant state or High Court schedule and are commonly ad valorem on the valuation. Professional fees for pleadings plus the interim stage in a commercial court or High Court commonly run from a low six-figure sum upwards, and materially higher where senior counsel is briefed for the injunction hearing.
• Interim relief timeline. First listing usually within days to a few weeks of filing, an ex parte or interim order at or shortly after that hearing in a strong case, and the contested interim application decided over a few months. Final disposal of the suit is a multi-year exercise, which is precisely why the interim stage matters so much.
• The hidden cost. The cost-per-click you pay to bid defensively on your own brand name, month after month, while you decide whether to act. Put that number next to the notice fee before concluding that enforcement is expensive.

The mistakes that cost brand owners these cases

Common mistake. Founders treat the trademark as a one-time registration formality and the brand's Google results as the marketing team's problem. The two files are the same file. In every keyword dispute I have seen, the side with twelve months of dated screenshots and a tidy registration portfolio dictated the settlement; the side with neither paid for its tidiness retrospectively, in court fees.

• Sitting on it. Delay does not extinguish a registered right, but it is the first thing raised against your interim application, and acquiescence is a live defence under Section 33. If you have known for two years and done nothing, expect to be asked why the urgency arrived this month.
• Screenshots without provenance. A cropped image with no date, no URL and no query proves nothing. Capture the whole window, keep the file's original metadata, and log each capture in a simple dated register.
• Complaining to the agency instead of the advertiser. The agency has no authority to bind its client and every incentive to keep the campaign running. Notice must reach the advertiser.
• Registering the logo only. If your enforcement problem is the word being bid on, a device-mark registration is the wrong weapon. Register the word mark.
• Assuming the platform is the only defendant worth suing. The advertiser is the party taking your customer and the party a court can most easily restrain. The platform's liability is a separate and harder question.
• Over-pleading. Claiming that every sponsored result adjacent to your brand is infringement invites the answer the Division Bench already gave: interest without confusion is not infringement. Plead the instances where the ad copy, the display URL or the landing page actually confuses.
• Letting registrations lapse. Renewal falls due every ten years and is the easiest thing in this article to get right and the most embarrassing to get wrong.

What this means for advertisers, too

The mirror image deserves a paragraph, because half the businesses reading this also buy ads. Bidding on a competitor's brand name is now contested legal territory in India: the ruling under appeal went against the practice, and even the more permissive line of cases never protected ad text that uses a rival's mark or creates confusion about who you are. If your agency is running competitor-brand campaigns, have them reviewed now: keyword lists, ad copy, and landing pages, against both Section 29 and the pending appeal's likely outcomes. Test each campaign against Section 30(1) as well: is this use honest, is it necessary to identify the goods or services truthfully, and does it take unfair advantage of the other side's reputation? A campaign that fails that test on its face will not be saved by the argument that the keyword was invisible. An injunction plus damages plus the diversion of your own management time is a high price for borrowed traffic.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific situations need specific counsel.

Related guides and where to get help

If this is a live problem rather than background reading, our intellectual property practice handles these matters from Bengaluru, including for clients who cannot attend court in person. These guides go deeper on the neighbouring questions:

• Well-Known Trademarks in India: Cross-Class Brand Protection
• How to Reply to a Trademark Objection in India
• Trademark Infringement in India: Tests, Remedies and Damages