In a key ruling, the HC ruled on Thursday that Google’s use of trademarks as keywords constitutes a “use” for purposes of intellectual property law because the global internet giant operates an advertising business over which it has “extensive control” and that also is a commercial endeavor. “Google is not a passive intermediary, but operates an advertising business over which it has extensive control. Just because said business operates online and is integrated with its service as an intermediary does not entitle Google to Section 79(1) benefits. ) of IT (information technology) Act as far as the advertising program is concerned,” said a jury composed of judges Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan.
HC’s ruling follows an appeal by Google against a single judge’s order in a lawsuit brought by Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd alleging that the use of its trademark and its variations as keywords in the Ads program was used to redirect traffic from HC have maintained the plaintiff’s website with that of the advertiser.

“At first glance, we cannot accept the view that the use of trademarks as keywords in the advertising program is only exploited by the advertisers and not by Google … It is difficult to accept that Google, in a manner of speaking, sells keywords for use in its proprietary.” uses software, it does not use it,” the court concluded.
However, in determining whether, in a particular case, the use of a trademark as a keyword constitutes an infringement of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the facts of each individual case must be considered.
Attorney Jeevesh Nagrath, acting for Agarwal Packers and Movers, called it a “groundbreaking ruling”. He added that “not only will the judgment lead to further developments in trademark law in the country and probably worldwide, but the judgment and its findings will also lead to greater advances in the protection of trademarks owned by owners”.
“The Honorable Court has ruled that the provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (which are intended to protect the rights of owners and registered holders of trade marks) should not be given a narrow and limited meaning in relation to the ‘use’ of a trade mark, but said provisions should be given a focused and comprehensive meaning,” said Nagrath.