Google has appealed the Delhi High Court (HC) ruling that held it liable for trademark infringement over keyword advertising, arguing the decision makes India the “sole outlier” among global jurisdictions “with serious consequences for the digital advertising industry, online consumer choice, and competitive markets,” according to documents reviewed by Reuters.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora will hear the appeal on July 10. The 4,761-page challenge, filed July 7, is not public. It challenges the single-judge judgment delivered in May. MediaNama has covered the judgment in detail here.
What Google argues in its appeal:
- Keywords are backend triggers, not trademark use. Google says “a keyword is merely used as an internal and backend trigger to display an ad,” and that it is simply “making advertising space available.”
- The ruling harms consumers. Consumers often search for a brand to identify and assess alternatives, Google argues, so that the decision would grant trademark owners a “monopoly over advertising space to the detriment of consumers.”
- It breaks from precedent. The order “diverges from established legal precedents in India,” a Google spokesperson told Reuters, adding that its ads policies enable competition.
- Coined and generic marks deserve equal treatment. Google will contest the single-judge finding that a coined mark like “Hindware” merits different treatment from generic names, arguing the Trade Marks Act, 1999, draws no such distinction.
- Prior rulings allow the practice. Google plans to rely on earlier Delhi HC, Supreme Court (SC), and Competition Commission of India (CCI) decisions that recognised keyword advertising.
Google’s appeal reprises the argument the court already rejected: The backend-trigger claim, which Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed in the May 22 ruling. The court held that under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, a registered mark need not physically appear in an advertisement for it to be “used in advertising.” Invisible keyword triggers therefore amount to trademark use. The court also applied Section 29(8), which treats unfair advantage of a mark in advertising as infringement without requiring proof of consumer confusion.
The court made three further findings against Google:
- Selling what it does not own. Google sold the Hindware brand’s “commercial pulling power” without authorisation.
- Actively pushing the terms. Google suggested trademarked terms to advertisers through its Keyword Planner Tool and ran the keyword auctions.
- Profiting from the diversion. Google earned pay-per-click revenue when users searching for Hindware clicked competitor ads.
The Section 79 finding that Google now has to overturn: The ruling also stripped Google of safe harbour under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The court held that Google was not a passive intermediary. It selects which advertiser reaches which user,…
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]
