Hindware Ltd v. Grohe India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Competitors used Google’s automated ad platform to bid on the keyword "Hindware." Google's algorithm uses the trademark as an invisible, backend trigger to auction off the user's high purchase intent in milliseconds and dynamically serve the competitor's ad. The Delhi High Court stripped Google of its "safe harbor" defense. The court ruled that by actively monetizing trademarks through its keyword algorithm, Google is not a passive platform—it is directly liable for trademark infringement. Tech platforms in India can no longer use "the algorithm did it automatically" as a legal shield if that algorithm is built to monetize someone else's IP.
The AIACT.IN India AI Regulation Tracker
This is a simple regulatory tracker consisting all information on how India is regulating artificial intelligence as a technology, inspired from a seminal paper authored by Abhivardhan and Deepanshu Singh for the Forum of Federations, Canada, entitled, "Government with Algorithms: Managing AI in India’s Federal System – Number 70".
We have also included case laws along with regulatory / governance documents, and avoided adding any industry documents or policy papers which do not reflect any direct or implicit legal impact.
May 2026
Issuing Authority
Delhi High Court
Type of Legal / Policy Document
Judicial Pronouncements - National Court Precedents
Status
Enacted
Regulatory Stage
Regulatory
Binding Value
Legally binding instruments enforceable before courts
Related Long-form Insights on IndoPacific.App
