Introduction
The Delhi High Court has delivered an important judgement clarifying the scope of contempt proceedings arising from trademark disputes involving online advertising and search engine platforms. The decision in M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. addresses the increasingly significant issue of how trademark rights interact with keyword-based digital advertising.
The case is particularly relevant for:
- Trademark owners
- Technology companies
- Online advertising platforms
- Digital marketers
- Intellectual property practitioners
- Businesses that rely on internet visibility for customer acquisition
The judgement clarifies the extent of obligations imposed upon online intermediaries and emphasises that contempt proceedings cannot be used to expand the scope of earlier judicial directions.
The ruling also provides valuable guidance regarding keyword advertising, trademark enforcement in the digital environment, intermediary liability, and the standards required to establish wilful disobedience of court orders.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs, M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd and another, instituted a commercial suit seeking protection of their trademarks, including “AGARWAL”, “AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS”, and “DRS Logistics”. The suit sought reliefs relating to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.
During the pendency of the suit, the court passed a judgement dated 30.10.2021 in applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court directed Google and the concerned defendants to investigate complaints made by the plaintiffs regarding the use of their trademarks and variations as keywords resulting in the diversion of internet traffic.
The Court further directed that if infringement or passing off was found, appropriate action should be taken to restrain advertisers and remove or block offending advertisements.
The defendants challenged the judgement before a division bench through the following:
- FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022
- FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022
By a common judgement dated 10.08.2023, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the directions issued by the Single Judge.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs conducted searches in June 2025 and claimed that third-party sponsored links continued to appear when searches were made using the plaintiffs’ trademarks. According to the plaintiffs, these sponsored advertisements resulted in diversion of traffic and consumer confusion.
The plaintiffs issued a notice dated 17.06.2025 alleging violation of the earlier judgements. Thereafter, they filed the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Google and related defendants for alleged wilful disobedience of the earlier judgements.
The defendants opposed the application and asserted that they had complied with the directions contained in the earlier judgements and that no contempt had been made out.
Procedural Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30.10.2021 | The single judge passed interim directions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC regarding the investigation of trademark keyword complaints. |
| 2022 | Appeals filed through FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022. |
| 10.08.2023 | The division bench upheld the directions issued by the single judge. |
| June 2025 | Plaintiffs claimed that sponsored advertisements continued to appear for searches using their trademarks. |
| 17.06.2025 | Notice alleging violation of earlier judgements issued by the plaintiffs. |
| Thereafter | Application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. |
Dispute Before the Court
The primary controversy before the Court concerned the true scope of the earlier judgements passed in 2021 and 2023.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
The plaintiffs argued that the following:
- Google and the other defendants had undertaken before the court that the plaintiffs’ trademarks would not appear in advertisement text.
- The plaintiffs’ trademarks would not appear in advertisement titles.
- The plaintiffs’ trademarks would not appear in URLs of third-party advertisements.
- The continued appearance of such advertisements amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience of the earlier judicial directions.
Defendants’ Contentions
The defendants, on the other hand, contended the following:
- The earlier judgements dealt primarily with the issue of trademark use as keywords.
- The judgements required investigation of complaints received from trademark owners.
- The judgements did not impose any obligation to proactively monitor and block every advertisement appearing on the platform.
Issues Before the Court
The court was therefore required to determine the following:
- Whether the earlier directions extended beyond keyword advertising.
- Whether the defendants had committed wilful contempt by permitting the plaintiffs’ trademarks to appear in advertisement text.
- Whether the defendants had committed wilful contempt by permitting the plaintiffs’ trademarks to appear in advertisement titles.
- Whether the defendants had committed wilful contempt by permitting the plaintiffs’ trademarks to appear in advertisement URLs.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court observed that the directions contained in the earlier judgements specifically required the defendants to investigate complaints made by the plaintiffs concerning use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks as keywords. The directions further required investigation of the overall effect of advertisements and removal or blocking of advertisements found to be infringing.
A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its analysis of the statement recorded in the order dated 22.01.2020. During those proceedings, Google had stated that, under its advertising policies, third parties were not permitted to use another proprietor’s trademark in advertisement text or advertisement titles and that the policy would be implemented in favour of the plaintiffs.
The Court noted that because of this statement, the plaintiffs had confined the controversy in the injunction proceedings to the issue of trademark use as keywords. Consequently, the earlier judgements were focused on keyword advertising rather than on the use of trademarks in advertisement text, advertisement titles, or URLs.
The Court held that the operative directions ultimately granted were narrower than the broad reliefs originally sought by the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs had sought extensive restrictions on use of their trademarks, the final directions only required investigation of complaints relating to keyword usage.
Court Analysis of Contempt Jurisdiction
The court further emphasised the settled principles governing contempt jurisdiction.
- Reliance was placed upon Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, (2014) 3 SCC 373, wherein the Supreme Court held that only explicit and self-evident directions contained in a judgement can form the basis of contempt proceedings.
- The Court also referred to Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 204; Three Cheers Entertainment Private Limited v. CESE Limited, (2008) 16 SCC 592; and Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21. These authorities reiterate the principle that contempt proceedings are not maintainable where two reasonable interpretations of a court order are possible and where wilful disobedience is not established.
- The Court additionally relied upon Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture & Anr. v. Puneet Chhatwal & Ors., CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016, which recognised that the understanding of the alleged contemnor regarding the scope of the order is a relevant factor in determining whether contempt has occurred.
Application of Legal Principles
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the judgements did not impose any obligation upon the defendants to proactively monitor all advertisements or independently prevent every possible use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Rather, the relevant policy framework contemplated action upon receipt of complaints.
The Court nevertheless clarified that the defendants remained bound by their recorded statement that trademark use in advertisement text, advertisement titles, and URLs would not be permitted under their policy and that complaints concerning such usage would be investigated and addressed.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt application.
The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any wilful disobedience or violation of the directions contained in the earlier judgements. It found that the operative directions related primarily to the use of trademarks as keywords and did not require proactive monitoring of advertisement text, titles, or URLs.
The Court further noted that the impugned URLs referred to in the application had already been removed following the plaintiffs’ notice and pursuant to subsequent court orders.
The Court granted liberty to the plaintiffs to notify the defendants if they discover future advertisements using the plaintiffs’ trademarks in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Upon receiving such complaints, the defendants were directed to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with their policies as expeditiously as possible.
Point of Law Settled
The judgement clarifies that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to expand or reinterpret the scope of an earlier judicial order. Only clear, explicit, and self-evident directions can form the basis of contempt proceedings.
The court reaffirmed that where a judicial order is reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, contempt proceedings cannot succeed unless wilful disobedience is clearly established.
In the context of online trademark enforcement, the judgement further clarifies that directions requiring investigation of complaints regarding keyword advertising do not automatically impose a broader obligation upon online platforms to proactively monitor and prevent every instance of trademark use in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Such obligations must arise either from specific judicial directions or from the platform’s own policies and complaint-handling mechanisms.
Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
- Contempt jurisdiction is limited to enforcing clear and explicit judicial directions.
- Ambiguous or reasonably interpretable court orders cannot ordinarily give rise to contempt.
- Wilful disobedience is an essential requirement for establishing civil contempt.
- Directions concerning trademark keyword advertising do not automatically extend to advertisement text, advertisement titles, or URLs.
- Online platforms are generally required to investigate complaints in accordance with applicable policies rather than proactively monitor every advertisement unless specifically directed by a court.
Case Summary
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Title of the Case | DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Another Vs Google India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. |
| Date of Judgment/Order | 15.06.2026 |
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 1/2017 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:5102 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Justice Tejas Karia |
