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…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
