CS(COMM) 137/2019 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 137/2019 KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD. & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Swapnil Gaur, Advocate. versus APEX SERVICE CENTRE & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Davinder N. Grover, Ms. Vijay Laxmi Grover, Mr. Yash Vardhan Mittal and Mr. Gursimran Singh Rekhi, Advocates for D-1. Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Sauhard Alung, Advocates for D-2. Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Mr. Ujjawal Bhargava, Mr. Aditya Mathur and Ms. Anuparna Chatterjee, Advocates for D-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 26.05.2025 1. Counsel for the defendant no.1 submits on instructions that the defendant no.1 has never used the impugned mark ‘KENT’ and has no intention to use the same or any other mark deceptively similar to the said mark in future. 2. The aforesaid statement of counsel for the defendant no.1 is taken on record. 3. The defendant no.1 shall be bound by the same. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the suit is decreed qua the defendant no.1 in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2025 at 11:23:04 CS(COMM) 137/2019 terms of paragraph no. (B) of the prayer clause. 5. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the present suit may also be disposed of qua the defendants no.2 and 3 in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4809, which are set out below: “Use of trade marks as keywords absent any confusion, unfair advantage, dilution or compromise of the trade mark, is not infringement 131. The contention that the use of trade marks as keywords per se constitutes infringement of the trade mark is unmerited. The said contention is premised on the basis that registration of a trade mark under the TM Act grants the proprietor of the trade mark monopoly over the SERP yielded by a search query that contains the trade mark. This assumption is flawed. The aforesaid contention also disregards the participation of the internet user. The search engine is not a directory service. The assumption that an internet user is merely searching the address of the proprietor of the trade mark when he feeds in a search query that may contain a trade mark, is erroneous. An internet user may be looking for information that may be relevant to the trade mark. He may be looking at reviews relating to the products or services covered by the trade mark. He may also be looking at competitors or other persons who provide or deal with similar goods or services. A search engine is an indexing service that provides the addresses of the website/webpages (along with text relating to the site) that are relevant to a search query. It would be erroneous to assume that such information is required to be limited only to the website of the proprietor of a trade mark when an internet user keys in a search query, which comprises of a trade mark or includes the same. The popularity of an internet search engine and its success is based on the relevancy of the results yielded by the search engine. The search results that are provided by a search engine are also based on the location of web user, web browsing history of the internet user, and other factors. The SERP is to some extent personalised and tailored to the particular internet user. Thus, participation of an internet user in the outcome of the results (sponsored or organic) cannot be discounted. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2025 at 11:23:04 CS(COMM) 137/2019 xxx xxx xxx xxx 191. The prayers made in the applications (IA No. 21153 of 2011 and 4474 of 2014) filed by DRS which were disposed of by the impugned judgment, were in wide terms. DRS had sought directions to the effect that Google be restrained from using or permitting the use of DRS's registered trade marks or any other similar marks as keywords. The learned Single Judge has not granted interim relief in [sic] such wide terms; the relief granted to DRS is in terms of the following directions as set out in para 127 of the impugned order: “127. I must state here that the plaintiff can seek protection of its trade marks which are registered in view of Section 28 of the TM Act, but cannot have any right on surnames/generic words like packers or movers individually. Having said that in view of my above discussion, the applications are liable to be allowed, subject to final determination of the suit in the following manner: (I) Defendants 1 and 3 shall investigate any complaint to be made by the plaintiff to them alleging use of their [sic] trade mark and its variations as keywords resulting in the diversion of traffic from the website of the plaintiff to that of the advertiser. (II) Defendants 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 trade mark of the plaintiff. (III) If it is found that the usage of trade mark(s) and its variation as keywords and/or overall effect of the ad has the effect of infringing/passing off the trade mark of the plaintiff then Defendants 1 and 3 shall restrain the advertiser from using the same and remove/block such advertisements.” 6. Counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 have no objection to the same. 7. The present suit is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions qua the defendants no.2 and 3. 8. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 26, 2025/Rzu This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/05/2025 at 11:23:04