The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt application filed by DRS Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against Google India Pvt. Ltd. and related entities, holding that the company failed to establish any willful disobedience of earlier court directions concerning trademark-related online advertisements.
Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on June 15, 2026, in CS(COMM) 1/2017, M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Background of the Case
The long-running dispute concerns the trademarks “Agarwal”, “Aggarwal Packers and Movers” and “DRS Logistics”. DRS Logistics had earlier secured directions from the High Court in 2021, which were later upheld by a Division Bench in 2023.
The earlier orders required Google to investigate complaints regarding the use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks as keywords in advertisements and to remove or block ads if they were found to infringe trademark rights.
In 2025, DRS Logistics approached the court again, alleging that third-party sponsored advertisements continued to appear when users searched for its trademarks. The company argued that this amounted to a violation of the previous judgments and sought contempt action against Google.
The plaintiffs contended that Google had allowed third parties to use the disputed trademarks in advertisement text, titles and URLs despite earlier assurances given before the court.
Google opposed the plea, arguing that the previous judgments required it to investigate complaints made by the trademark owner and did not impose a duty to proactively monitor all advertisements.
The company maintained that its advertising policies already prohibited improper use of third-party trademarks and that complaints were reviewed whenever received.
After examining the earlier judgments, Justice Karia noted that the operative directions were focused on complaints regarding the use of trademarks as keywords.
The court observed that the plaintiffs had narrowed the earlier dispute to the issue of keyword advertising. As a result, the final directions issued in 2021 and affirmed in 2023 dealt specifically with that aspect.
“The operative directions contained therein were confined to the use of the Subject Marks as keywords,” the court noted.
The judge further clarified that the previous judgments did not require Google to proactively monitor and prevent every instance where trademarks might appear in advertisement text, titles or URLs without a complaint from the trademark owner.
At the same time, the court recorded that Google remained bound by its own policy commitments regarding trademark complaints.
Decision
Finding no evidence of willful disobedience, the High Court rejected the contempt allegations.
The bench observed that the advertisements and URLs highlighted by the plaintiffs had already been removed following complaints and subsequent court proceedings.
Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any deliberate violation of the earlier directions, Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the application and concluded that no further action was required against Google or the other defendants.
Case Details:
Case Title: M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1/2017
Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Decision Date: June 15, 2026
