The Delhi High Court has dismissed contempt proceedings against Google India and Google LLC in the long-running DRS Logistics trademark dispute, holding that the company’s obligations under earlier keyword advertising rulings were narrower than trademark owners had argued. Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026.
What happened: DRS Logistics, which owns trademarks including “Agarwal Packers and Movers,” “Aggarwal Packers and Movers,” and “DRS Logistics,” accused Google of violating earlier Delhi HC orders protecting the company’s trademark.
The company argued that third-party advertisers continued to use its trademarks in sponsored search results. According to DRS, Google’s search engine was still displaying competitor advertisements and sponsored links when users searched for its protected marks. The company, therefore, sought contempt action, alleging willful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions.
What the court held:
1. The earlier DRS rulings dealt only with keywords. The court held that the operative directions in the 2021 and 2023 judgments were limited to complaints involving the use of trademarks as keywords.
Those orders required Google to investigate complaints made by DRS alleging that its trademarks were being used as keywords to divert traffic. They did not impose broader obligations concerning the appearance of trademarks in ad text, ad titles, or URLs.
The court noted that the litigation had come to focus primarily on keyword bidding after Google represented to the court that its policies did not permit third parties to use protected trademarks in ad text and ad titles. In response to that representation, DRS’s senior counsel confined the injunction dispute to the narrower question of whether providing a trademark as a keyword to a third party amounted to infringement.
2. Google is not required to proactively monitor advertisements: A central issue was whether Google must independently scan and remove advertisements containing DRS’ trademarks.
The court rejected that interpretation. It held that the earlier judgments did not require Google to proactively monitor advertisements or prevent trademark use before receiving a complaint. Instead, Google’s obligations are triggered after a trademark owner notifies the company about a potentially infringing advertisement.
3. Trademark complaints remain governed by Google’s policy. Although the court declined to find contempt, it reaffirmed that Google remains bound by representations made during the earlier litigation.
Google had informed the court that its advertising policies do not permit third parties to use registered trademarks in ad text, ad titles, or URLs. The court said those commitments remain binding. However, enforcement occurs through Google’s complaint-based trademark policy rather than through any proactive monitoring obligation imposed by the earlier judgments.
4. No contempt because the earlier orders were open to interpretation: The court emphasised that contempt jurisdiction is limited. Courts can punish only clear and willful violations of explicit directions. Here, the judges found that the earlier DRS orders could reasonably be interpreted as applying only to keyword-related complaints. Since Google had acted against the complained-of URLs after receiving notice, the court concluded that willful disobedience had not been established.
The court also noted that the specific URLs complained of in the contempt application had already been taken down by Google following DRS’ notice in June 2025 and in accordance with directions passed by the court during the pendency of the present application.
What this means: For trademark owners, the judgment means they cannot rely on the DRS rulings to argue that Google must proactively police advertisements for trademark misuse. Instead, they must continue identifying allegedly infringing advertisements and notifying the platform.
For Google, the judgment preserves the complaint-based model reflected in its trademark policies. The company must investigate complaints and act where appropriate, but it is not required to continuously monitor all advertisements for trademark violations.
The decision also creates an interesting contrast with the recent Hindware v Google judgment, where a different Delhi HC bench treated Google’s keyword auction system itself as trademark use and denied the company Section 79 safe harbour protection.
Also read
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。