Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29.2 As already noted, paras 1 to 27 of Google LLC set out the aforesaid features of the Google Ads program, albeit in much greater detail.

30. Paras 31 to 35 of Google LLC

30.1 Paras 31 to 35 of the judgment in Google LLC identify the controversy before the Bench and read thus:

"31. Google further claims that it, as an intermediary, has a safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act and the learned Single Judge's findings to the contrary are erroneous. Google also contends that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge requiring it to investigate complaints alleging use of the trademark and/or to ascertain whether a sponsored result has an effect of infringing a trademark or passing off, are liable to be set aside.

31. Paras 36 to 44 of Google LLC Paras 36 to 44 of Google LLC set out, in brief, the findings in the judgment of the learned Single Judge which were in appeal before the Division Bench. They are not, therefore, relevant for us.

32. Paras 45 to 50 of Google LLC 32.1 Paras 45 to 50 set out Google's contention before the Division Bench. A reading of the said paragraphs once again indicates how similar the contention of IIL, before this Court are, to the contentions of Google before the Division Bench.

and would, therefore, also constitute use of the trade mark within the meaning of Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act.

36. Paras 94 to 106 of Google LLC 36.1 Paras 94 to 106 of the decision in Google LLC dealt with whether suggested keywords on the Google Ads program could be analogised with meta tags. In my opinion, it is not necessary to draw any analogy with meta tags in the present case. Paras 94 to 106 of Google LLC are not, therefore, of particular relevance to the facts before us.

38. Paras 131 to 164 of Google LLC 38.1 In paras 131 to 164, the Division Bench in Google LLC has examined whether use of third party trade marks as keywords in the Google Ads program would constitute infringement even if such use does not result in likelihood of confusion, unfair advantage, dilution or compromise of the third party trade mark. Paras 131 to 139 and 147 of the report in Google LLC merit reproduction thus: