M/S Drs Logistics (P) Ltd & Another vs Google India Pvt Ltd & Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 23.12.2025
% Judgment delivered on: 15.06.2026
+ CS(COMM) 1/2017, I.A. 2646/2020, I.A. 2173/2022, I.A.
18605/2025 & I.A. 25645/2025
M/S DRS LOGISTICS (P) LTD & ANOTHER .....Plaintiffs
versus
GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nancy Roy and Ms. Annanya Mehan,
Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Mr.
Ujjwal Bhargava, Mr. Aditya Mathur, Ms.
Anuparna Chatterjee, Mr. Krisna Gamdhir
and Ms. Shreya Sethi, Advocates for D-3.
Ms. Sriparna Dutta Choudhury, Mr. Naman
Dutt and Ms. Kopal Tewary, Advocates for
D-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. No. 18605/2025
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 1 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
1908 (“ CPC ”) and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (“ CC
Act ”) for violation of judgments dated 30.10.2021 passed in I.A. Nos.
21153/2011 and 4474/2014 and 10.08.2023 passed in FAO(OS)(COMM)
2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022 (“ Judgments ”).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs praying, inter alia , for
permanent and mandatory injunction against the infringement of the trade
mark, passing off and unfair competition in respect of ‘AGARWAL’ and / or
‘AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS’ and / or ‘DRS Logistics’ or any
other trade mark or name similar to the said Marks (“ Subject Marks ”).
3. Vide judgment dated 30.10.2021, passed in I.A. Nos. 21153/2011 and
4474/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, it was directed that:
“ (I) The defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall investigate any complaint to
be made by the plaintiff to them alleging use of its trademark
and its variations as keywords resulting in the diversion of
traffic from the website of the plaintiff to that of the advertiser.
(II) The defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall also investigate and review
the overall effect of an Ad to ascertain that the same is not
infringing / passing off the trademark of the plaintiff.
(III) If it is found that the usage of trademark(s) and its variations
as keywords and / or overall effect of the Ad has the effect of
infringing / passing off the trademark of the plaintiff then the
defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall restrain the advertiser from using
the same and remove / block such advertisements. ”
4. Pursuant to passing of judgment dated 30.10.2021, Defendant Nos. 1
and 3 filed appeals FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM)
22/2022, respectively. The said appeals were decided vide common
judgment dated 10.08.2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court
refused to interfere with the directions contained in judgment dated
30.10.2021.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 2 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
5. Subsequent to the pronouncement of the Judgments, the Plaintiffs
observed that the Subject Marks continued to be displayed on the search
engine of Defendant No. 3 as part of sponsored links of third parties when
searches were conducted using keywords comprising the Subject Marks. It
was further noticed that, although the Subject Marks did not appear on the
websites of such third parties, those websites nevertheless appeared amongst
the top search results on the search engine of Defendant No. 3 upon searches
being made with keywords containing the Subject Marks.
6. When the Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted a search on the search engine
of Defendant No. 3 with the keywords of the Subject Marks on 07.06.2025,
09.06.2025, 11.06.2025, 13.06.2025, 16.06.2025 and 25.06.2025, they were
shocked to see that the search engine of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 was still
reflecting the third-parties sponsored links on searching with the keywords
containing the Subject Marks,
7. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs addressed a Notice dated 17.06.2025
(“ Notice ’) through Counsel to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, informing them of
the alleged breach of the Judgments and calling upon them to ensure
immediate compliance with the directions contained therein. The said notice
was accompanied by screenshots evidencing the alleged violations.
8. On 07.07.2025, Defendant No. 3, through its Counsel, issued a
holding response to the Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
9. Even prior thereto, the Plaintiffs had addressed communications to
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 alleging violations of the Judgments and had also
instituted an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, being I.A. No.
2173/2022. By order dated 21.04.2022, notice was issued in the said
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 3 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
application and Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 were directed to file their replies.
The said application remains pending.
10. Defendant No. 3 filed its reply in I.A. No. 2173/2022, wherein it was
stated that Defendant No. 3 is responsible for trademark-based removals and
policies in relation to the Google Ads Program.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiffs instituted the present
Application on 24.07.2025 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings
against the alleged Contemnors and imposition of punishment for alleged
willful disobedience of the directions contained in the Judgments.
12. Subsequent to the filing of the present Application, Defendant No. 3
through its Counsel issued a Reply dated 26.07.2025 (“ Reply ”) to the Notice
contending that the Notice sent on behalf of the Plaintiffs proceeded on a
complete misreading and misinterpretation of the prevailing legal position
governing online keyword advertising in light of the Judgments. It was
further asserted therein that the Judgments had affirmed the legality of
Defendant No. 3’s advertising practice permitting third parties to use trade
marks as keywords, per se , in its Ads program, provided that the
advertisements so displayed were clearly indicative of their source as being
unconnected with the proprietor of the trade mark and, consequently, were
not likely to cause confusion to consumers. It was also stated that the
Judgments had held that the use of a registered trade mark as a keyword, in
the absence of confusion, dilution, or compromise of the trade mark, would
not amount to infringement. On that basis, it was contended that the
directions contained in the Judgments against Defendant No. 3 were
required to be read in the light of the findings and principles enunciated
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 4 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
therein and that, accordingly, there had been no wrongdoing on part of
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 or non-compliance with the Judgments.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that:
13.1. The alleged Contemnors continue to permit third parties to use
the Subject Marks as keywords, meta tags, and trade marks, in
clear violation of and disobedience to the directions contained
in the Judgments. The Contemnors are repeat offenders, have
demonstrated scant regard for the law, and are, therefore, liable
to be proceeded against in accordance with Order XXXIX Rule
2A CPC read with Section 12 of the CC Act.
13.2. Defendant No. 1 has, in its Written Statement, admitted that
advertisers may select “keywords”, in response to which their
advertisements are triggered and where such keywords
comprise trademarked terms that have been notified to
Defendant No. 3, the same would not appear in the Ad-Text of
any advertisement published by a party that is not the proprietor
of such trade marks. Defendant No. 1 has further admitted that
the policies adopted by Defendant No. 3 recognise and respect
trade mark rights and require advertisers to comply with all
applicable laws. It is also stated that, under the said policies, no
registered trade mark terms are permitted to be displayed in the
text or title of an advertisement or sponsored link, and that such
trademarked terms would likewise not appear in the URL of the
advertisement. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also admitted that
the constituent words forming part of the Subject Marks, if
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 5 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
notified to Defendant No. 3, would not be permitted to be used
in advertisements and, consequently, members of the public
would not see the use of such trademarked terms in the
advertisements of any other advertiser. Accordingly, only the
proprietor of the registered trade mark terms would be entitled
to use such marks in the visible body and text of the
advertisement displayed to users of the search engine and the
keywords, irrespective of whether they comprise trademarked
terms or otherwise, are not visible to any user of the search
engine.
13.3. Defendant No. 1 has further admitted that the AdWords
Trademark Policy (“ Policy ”), which is stated to be adhered to
strictly and uniformly, ensures that registered trade mark terms
do not appear in the Ad-Title, Ad-Text, or URL of an
advertisement and that each advertiser’s advertisement appears
distinctly. It is further admitted that the Policy does not permit
the use of trademarked terms in the text or title of an
advertisement.
13.4. Further, the judgment dated 30.10.2021 records the statement of
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendant No. 3 to
the effect that Defendant No. 3 does not permit any third party
to put, publish, or refer to the trade mark of a proprietor in the
Ad-Text or Ad-Title, in terms of the Policy, and that the said
Policy continues to remain in force and would be implemented
in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 6 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
13.5. In view of the above statement, learned Senior Counsel for the
Plaintiffs had submitted that the only issue requiring
determination, for the purposes of injunction, was whether the
provision of a proprietor’s trade mark as a keyword to a third
party would amount to trade mark infringement.
13.6. The order dated 22.01.2020 recording the statement on behalf
of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 was passed during the course of
arguments on the Plaintiffs’ application for interim injunction
and did not constitute an ad interim measure. The scope of
adjudication on the Plaintiffs’ application for interim injunction
stood narrowed down on account of the categorical statement
made by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that they had blocked the list
of trade marks furnished by the Plaintiffs from appearing in Ad-
Text.
13.7. The judgment dated 30.10.2021 also referred to the submission
recorded in the order dated 22.01.2020 that the only issue
requiring adjudication for the purposes of injunction was
whether providing a proprietor’s trade mark as a keyword to a
third party would amount to trade mark infringement, in view
of the statement made on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that
the Subject Marks had been blocked by them from appearing in
the Ad-Text of any advertisement.
13.8. In view of the above, the arguments advanced by the Parties, as
well as the findings returned in the Judgments, were confined to
the question whether the use of the Subject Marks as keywords
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 7 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 amounted to infringement of the
Plaintiffs’ trade marks.
13.9. The judgment dated 30.10.2021 records the statement made on
behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that Defendant No. 3 had
agreed to block the Subject Marks from appearing in the Ad-
Title and Ad-Text of an advertisement or sponsored link and
that the trademarked term would not appear in the URL of the
advertisement, and that the said policies would be applicable to
the Plaintiffs.
13.10.In view of the foregoing, the statement made by Defendant Nos.
1 and 3, as recorded in the order dated 22.01.2020 and
reiterated in the judgment dated 30.10.2021, was taken on
record and is binding upon them. The contention advanced by
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that the said statement was merely an
ad interim measure and, therefore, not binding upon them, on
the premise that no restriction existed on Defendant No. 3
permitting third parties to use the Subject Marks and variations
thereof in Ad-Text and Ad-Title, is wholly misconceived. Such
a plea demonstrates that the acts of the Contemnors are willful
and deliberate violation of the directions contained in the
Judgments, and that such conduct has continued with impunity.
13.11.In their Reply to the Notice, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have
remained wholly silent on the issue of the Subject Marks being
used in the Ad-Text and Ad-Title. It is only subsequent to the
issuance of the Notice and the institution of the present
Application that Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 appear to have taken
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 8 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
action against advertisements incorporating the Subject Marks
in the Ad-Text and Ad-Title, purportedly under Defendant No.
3’s Misrepresentation Policy.
13.12.The entire Reply on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 addresses
only the use of the Subject Marks as keywords and does not
deal with the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text and Ad-Title.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Contemnors have deliberately
failed to explain how third parties were able to use the Subject
Marks and their variations in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, and URL,
which is contrary to the statement made before this Court and
taken on record.
13.13.In view of the above, the conduct of the alleged Contemnors in
enabling third-party infringers and counterfeiters to divert
internet traffic to themselves and to solicit inquiries and render
packaging and moving services by deceiving customers into
believing that such services are being provided by the Plaintiffs
is clearly contemptuous of the directions contained in the
Judgments. Numerous users have allegedly lost their articles
and household goods on account of such deception, as fly-by-
night operators temporarily set up fraudulent accounts with the
alleged Contemnors, deceive consumers, and thereafter
disappear.
13.14.Accordingly, the alleged Contemnors are liable to be held guilty
of contempt and that appropriate orders be passed against them.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 9 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
14. The learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No. 3 has made the
following submissions:
14.1. At the outset, it is submitted that Defendant No. 3 does not
permit the use of third-party trade marks in advertisements
under its Policy. Where a trade mark owner lodges a complaint
with Defendant No. 3, the impugned advertisement is reviewed
and may be restricted or blocked in accordance with the Policy.
The directions contained in the Judgments are consistent with
the said Policy. Accordingly, any contention to the contrary is
wholly misconceived and untenable.
14.2. The Plaintiffs’ contention that the Judgments obligate
Defendant No. 3 to ensure that the Subject Marks do not appear
in the Ad-Text of any third-party advertisement absent any
complaint being made to Defendant No. 3 is founded upon a
complete misreading of the Judgments. The position canvassed
by the Plaintiffs proceeds on an erroneous construction of both
the directions and the legal principles enunciated therein.
14.3. Paragraph No. 191 of the judgment dated 10.08.2023 records
that the prayers sought by the Plaintiffs in the applications for
interim relief were couched in broad terms, including a prayer
to restrain Defendant No. 3 from using or permitting the use of
the Subject Marks or any similar marks as keywords. However,
the judgment dated 30.10.2021 did not grant interim relief in
such expansive terms and merely directed Defendant Nos. 1 and
3 to investigate any complaint made by the Plaintiffs alleging
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 10 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
use of the Subject Marks and their variations as keywords
resulting in diversion of traffic from the Plaintiffs’ website to
the advertisers.
14.4. Accordingly, the Judgments reaffirm the requirement that the
Plaintiffs must make a complaint in respect of advertisements of
third-party advertisers by which the Plaintiffs claim to be
aggrieved. The Plaintiffs’ construction of the Judgments that no
complaint is required in relation to advertisements allegedly
violative of their rights, is wholly fallacious and would render
the express directions requiring the Plaintiffs to lodge a
complaint with Defendant No. 3 in the context of the use of the
Subject Marks as keywords otiose.
14.5. The directions contained in the Judgments specifically require
Defendant No. 3 to investigate and review the overall effect of
an advertisement and to remove or block such advertisements
as are found to infringe the Plaintiffs’ trade mark rights. Those
directions must be read conjunctively and not in isolation. A
plain reading thereof makes it clear that they operate in the
context of identified advertisements in respect of which a
complaint has been made by the Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 3
and which are, thereafter, found to infringe the Subject Marks.
14.6. The Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant No. 3 is not in
compliance with the order dated 22.01.2020 is without basis
and devoid of merit. The statement made by Defendant No. 3 in
the said order was expressly made without prejudice at an ad
interim stage during the pendency of the interim injunction
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 11 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
applications and was subject to the extent permitted by
Defendant No. 3’s various advertising policies. The said order
merely records the statement of learned counsel in the context
of the ad interim measures then taken, without prejudice to the
rights and remedies of Defendant No. 3.
14.7. This Court, after considering the entire material on record,
including the statement contained in the order dated 22.01.2020
as well as the expansive reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs, issued
the specific directions contained in the Judgments. Neither of
the Judgments contains any direction binding Defendant Nos. 1
and 3 to the ad interim statement recorded in the order dated
22.01.2020, and any assertion to the contrary is misconceived
and untenable.
14.8. The judgment dated 10.08.2023 further reflects the prevailing
legal position on online keyword advertising by unequivocally
holding that the proposition that the use of a trade mark as a
keyword per se constitutes trade mark infringement is
unsustainable, and that, so long as such use does not cause
confusion, dilution, or compromise of the trade mark, it would
not amount to infringement.
14.9. The judgment dated 10.08.2023 also holds that there is nothing
unlawful in Defendant No. 3 using trade marks as keywords for
the display of advertisements, provided there is no confusion
and the displayed advertisements are not associated with, or
related to the trade mark proprietor. Where the advertisement or
link does not give rise to confusion, the trade mark proprietor’s
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 12 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
grievance regarding the use of its trade marks as keywords in
the Ads Program is not actionable.
14.10.In the context of contributory liability, the judgment dated
10.08.2023 expressly held that, where Defendant No. 3 has
actively participated in the infringement of a trade mark by
displaying an infringing advertisement and has failed to take
remedial steps upon acquiring knowledge thereof, proceedings
to hold Defendant No. 3 contributorily liable may be
maintainable. However, in the absence of any complaint from
the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 3 would have neither the requisite
knowledge of, nor occasion to investigate, the impugned
advertisements. The directions contained in the Judgments
must, therefore, be construed in the light of the findings and
principles articulated therein.
14.11.In the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiffs’ submission that
Defendant No. 3 is obliged to proactively monitor its Google
Ads Program and pre-emptively block any third-party
advertisements allegedly containing the Subject Marks runs
contrary to the governing principles of contributory liability and
amounts to a clear misreading and misinterpretation of the
directions contained in the Judgments.
14.12.It is well settled that where two interpretations are possible, and
the conduct complained of is not contemptuous, contempt
proceedings would not be maintainable, as held in Ram Kishan
v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. , (2014) 16 SCC 204, Three Cheers
Entertainment Private Limited & Ors. v. CESE Limited ,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 13 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
(2008) 16 SCC 592, and Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak
Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21 .
14.13.The Plaintiffs cannot invite this Court, while exercising
contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the order in a manner
different from its plain terms. Only those directions which are
self-evident on the face of the order can be considered for the
purpose of determining violation or disobedience, as held in
Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture & Anr. v. Puneet
Chhatwal & Ors. , CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016.
14.14.In view of the foregoing, no question of disobedience or non-
compliance with the Judgments arises, much less any question
of willful disobedience. The present Application is, therefore,
liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
15. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Parties,
the principal issues arising for consideration in the present Application are:
whether the directions contained in the Judgments are confined to the use of
the Subject Marks as keywords, or whether they also extend to the use of the
Subject Marks in the Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL of advertisements published
by third parties and, if so, whether Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are under an
obligation to proactively ensure that the Subject Marks are not so used
without there being any needs for any complaint by the Plaintiffs.
16. The directions contained in the Judgments require Defendant Nos. 1
and 3 to investigate any complaint made by the Plaintiffs alleging use of the
Subject Marks and their variations as keywords resulting in diversion of
traffic from the Plaintiffs’ website to that of the advertiser. The said
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 14 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
directions further require Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to investigate and review
the overall effect of an advertisement so as to ascertain whether the same
infringes or passes off the Subject Marks. The directions also stipulate that,
if the use of the Subject Marks and their variations as keywords and / or the
overall effect of the advertisement is found to infringe or pass off the
Subject Marks, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 shall restrain the advertiser from
using the same and shall remove or block such advertisements.
17. The Plaintiffs have contended that the aforesaid directions are
confined to cases involving the use of the Subject Marks as keywords and do
not extend to their use in the Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL of advertisements
published by third-party advertisers. According to the Plaintiffs, the
directions contained in the Judgments were confined due to the statement
made on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, as recorded in the order dated
22.01.2020 and reiterated in the judgment dated 30.10.2021, that Defendant
Nos. 1 and 3 did not permit any third party to put, publish, or refer to the
trade mark of a proprietor in the Ad-Text or Ad-Title in terms of the Policy,
and that the same would be implemented in favour of the Plaintiffs. It is
submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that, in view of the said statement,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs had confined the
controversy, for the purposes of interim injunction, to the limited issue of
whether the provision of the Subject Marks as keywords to third parties
would amount to infringement thereof. Consequently, according to the
Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are bound to comply with the said
statement by ensuring that the Subject Marks do not appear in the Ad-Text,
Ad-Title, or URL of any advertisement without there being any need to
submit any complaint by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 15 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
18. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, however, contend that the said statement was
made without prejudice to their rights as an interim measure and did not
bind them. It was further submitted by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that the
statement was made in context of the Policy, which specifically require the
complaint to be made by the proprietor of the trade mark so that after
examining such complaint, appropriate action can be taken by Defendant
Nos. 1 and 3. It is the stand of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that there was no
direction in the Judgments to proactively ensure that the Subject Marks do
not appear as part of Ad-Text, Ad-Title or URL without there being any
complaint received by Defendant Nos. 1 and 3.
19. The operative portions of the Judgments indicate that, although the
Plaintiffs had sought broad reliefs restraining Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 from
using or permitting the use of the Subject Marks either as keywords, meta
tags, or trade marks, the directions ultimately granted required Defendant
Nos. 1 and 3 to investigate complaints made by the Plaintiffs alleging use of
the Subject Marks and their variations as keywords alone.
20. It is settled law that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot
undertake an interpretative exercise in respect of the judgment or order of
which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. However, for the
purpose of determining whether the alleged Contemnors have committed
willful disobedience thereof, the understanding of the party alleged to be in
contempt is a relevant consideration as held in Jiva Institute of Vedic
Science ( supra ). Further, in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran ,
(2014) 3 SCC 373, it is held that:
19. …Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order
or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the
purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 16 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot
be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts
must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power
available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or
appeal is not trenched upon.”
[Emphasis added]
21. In the facts of the present case, the judgment dated 30.10.2021
recorded the statement made on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in
Paragraph No. 3 as under:
“ 3. I shall proceed to decide both these applications
simultaneously. This Court vide order dated January 22, 2020 had
recorded the submission of the plaintiff wherein it had stated that the
only issue which need to be decided fo the purpose of injunction is,
whether providing a trademark of an owner as a keyword to a third
party would amount to infringement of a trademark. The same has
been reproduced as under:
“2. In other words, he clarifies that Google does not
allow any third party to put / publish / refer to a
trademark of an owner in the Adtext / Adtitle as per its
policy. Mr. Sethi also states that the said policy is still in
vogue and shall be implemented in favour of the plaintiff.
3. On this, Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the plaintiffs, states that in view of the
statement of Mr. Sethi, the only issue which needs to be
decided for the purpose of injunction is whether
providing a trademark of an owner as a keyword to a
third party shall amount to infringement of a
trademark” ”
22. In view of the above, it is evident that the Plaintiffs confined their
submissions to the issue of use of the Subject Marks as keywords for online
advertisements on the platform of Defendant No. 3. Consequently, the
submissions advanced on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, as recorded in
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 17 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
the judgment dated 30.10.2021, were also limited to the use of the Subject
Marks as keywords.
23. Accordingly, the judgment dated 30.10.2021 examined the
contentions of the Parties in relation to the use of the Subject Marks as
keywords resulting in sponsored search results. Although the said judgment
makes extensive reference to the Policy of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in the
context of Defendant No. 3 examining complaints by a trade mark owner
concerning the use of a registered trade mark in Ad-Text or Ad-Title, the
operative directions contained therein were confined to the use of the
Subject Marks as keywords.
24. Resultantly, the directions issued in the Judgments were limited to the
investigation of complaints made by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3
alleging the use of the Subject Marks and their variations as keywords.
Therefore, the Judgments do not contain any direction requiring the
Plaintiffs to lodge complaints alleging use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text,
Ad-Title, or URL, nor any corresponding direction requiring Defendant Nos.
1 and 3 to investigate such complaints.
25. The statement made on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and
recorded in judgment dated 30.10.2021 had a specific reference to not
permitting the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text and Ad-Title in
accordance with the Policy, which was to be implemented in favour of the
Plaintiffs. Based on this statement made on behalf of Defendant No. 1 and 3
that the Plaintiffs decided not to press their prayers insofar as the use of the
Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, and URL.
26. In view of the above, the Judgments have not considered the aspect of
the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL, and provide only
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 18 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
for complaints by the Plaintiffs to Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in cases involving
use of the Subject Marks as keywords.
27. Accordingly, the contention of the Plaintiffs that the alleged
Contemnors have willfully disobeyed the directions contained in the
Judgments by permitting the use of the Subject Marks as part of Ad-Text,
Ad-Title, and URLs cannot be accepted. However, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3
are bound by the statement recorded in the judgment dated 30.10.2021 to the
effect that, if the Subject Marks are used in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL, the
same would not be permitted in terms of the Policy of Defendant No. 3,
which was also stated to be implemented in favour of the Plaintiffs.
28. Therefore, the Judgments do not impose any obligation upon
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to proactively monitor and prevent the use of the
Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL in advertisements of third
parties. At the same time, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 remain bound by the
statement recorded in the judgment dated 30.10.2021 that the Subject Marks
would not be permitted to be used in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL in terms of
the Policy.
29. However, the statement made on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, as
recorded and reiterated in the Judgments, expressly refers to the Policy of
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, which provides that upon receipt of a complaint
alleging such use, Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 would examine the same and take
appropriate action so as to prevent any third party from using, publishing, or
referring to the Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL.
30. In view of the above, since the operative part of the Judgments relate
only to the use of the Subject Marks as keywords, the grievance of the
Plaintiffs regarding the use of the Subject Marks in Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 19 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15
URL shall be governed by the Policy of Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and not by
the directions contained in the Judgments.
31. Accordingly, no willful disobedience of the directions contained in the
Judgments can be said to have been committed by the alleged Contemnors
as the URLs referred to in the present Application have already been taken
down pursuant to the Notice dated 17.06.2025 in accordance with the Policy
and directions contained in the orders dated 04.08.2025 and 25.08.2025
passed by this Court in the present Application.
32. It is settled law that where two interpretations of the directions are
possible, and action which is complained of is not willful, contempt
proceedings would not be maintainable as held in Ram Kishan ( supra ),
Three Cheers Entertainment (supra) and Anil Ratan Sarkar (supra) .
33. Hence, no further action is required to be taken by Defendant Nos. 1
and 3 in respect of the advertisements referred to in the present Application.
In case the Plaintiffs hereafter come across any advertisement using the
Subject Marks as part of Ad-Text, Ad-Title, or URL, they shall be at liberty
to notify Defendant Nos. 1 and 3, who shall investigate the said complaint
and take appropriate action in terms of the Policy as expeditiously as
possible.
34. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the Plaintiffs have not been able to
establish any willful disobedience or violation of the directions contained in
the Judgments by the alleged Contemnors. Accordingly, the present
Application is dismissed.
TEJAS KARIA, J
JUNE 15, 2026
sms/ap
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 1/2017 Page 20 of 20
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.06.2026
18:58:15