Google Not Bound By Earlier Orders To Proactively Monitor Use Of DRS Logistics Marks In Ads: Delhi High Court

Google cannot be held in contempt over third-party advertisements using DRS Logistics' trademarks in ad text, ad titles and URLs, the Delhi High Court has held, ruling that earlier orders did not require the company to "proactively monitor and prevent" such use.

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on Monday.

"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," the Court observed.

DRS Logistics, which operates under the marks "Agarwal", "Aggarwal Packers and Movers" and "DRS Logistics", had accused Google India and Google LLC of violating earlier directions passed in a long-running trademark dispute.

The company claimed that searches conducted in June 2025 using its trademarked names continued to display sponsored links of competing businesses and that its marks appeared in ad text, ad titles, and URLs.

In October 2021, the High Court directed Google India and Google LLC to investigate complaints alleging use of DRS Logistics' trademarks as keywords resulting in diversion of traffic and to remove advertisements found to infringe or pass off the company's marks. A Division Bench later declined to interfere with those directions.

The Court noted that during the injunction proceedings, DRS Logistics had narrowed the controversy to whether providing a trademark as a keyword to a third party amounted to infringement after Google's counsel stated that the company's policy did not permit third parties to use a trademark owner's mark in ad text or ad titles and that the policy would be implemented in the company's favour.

DRS Logistics argued that the continued appearance of its marks in advertisements amounted to willful disobedience of the Court's directions. Google contended that the earlier proceedings had been confined to the issue of trademark use as keywords and that no order required it to proactively monitor advertisements for use of the marks in ad text, ad titles or URLs. It maintained that complaints concerning such use were addressed through its trademark policy.

Justice Karia held that the directions contained in the earlier judgments were limited to complaints concerning the use of the marks as keywords.

"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," the Court held.

The Court held that the operative directions in the earlier judgments were confined to the use of the marks as keywords and did not address their use in ad text, ad titles or URLs.

"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," the Court observed.

The court, however, clarified that Google remained bound by the statement recorded in the 2021 judgment that the marks would not be permitted in ad text, ad titles, or URLs under its policy.

It further held that complaints regarding use of the marks in ad text, ad titles or URLs would be governed by Google's policy mechanism and not by the directions contained in the earlier judgments.

The court also noted that the URLs referred to in the contempt application had already been taken down following DRS Logistics' notice to Google.

Holding that DRS Logistics had failed to establish any willful disobedience of the earlier directions, the Court dismissed the contempt application. It added that if the company comes across advertisements using its trademarks in ad text, ad titles or URLs in future, it may notify Google, which must investigate the complaint and take appropriate action under its policy as expeditiously as possible.