{"id":11596,"date":"2024-05-07T12:51:34","date_gmt":"2024-05-07T12:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=11596"},"modified":"2024-05-07T12:51:37","modified_gmt":"2024-05-07T12:51:37","slug":"google-drs-logistics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/","title":{"rendered":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Case details: Google LLC v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. &amp; Ors., FAO (OS) (COMM) 2\/2022<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Coram: HMJ Vibhu Bakhru and HMJ Amit Mahajan <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_47_1 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"ez-toc-toggle-icon-1\"><label for=\"item-6a3c5c54164a4\" aria-label=\"Table of Content\"><span style=\"display: flex;align-items: center;width: 35px;height: 30px;justify-content: center;direction:ltr;\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/label><input  type=\"checkbox\" id=\"item-6a3c5c54164a4\"><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Why_appeal_was_preferred\" title=\"Why appeal was preferred?\">Why appeal was preferred?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#What_exactly_was_directed_vide_the_impugned_Judgement\" title=\"What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement?\">What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Ratio_of_impugned_Judgment\" title=\"Ratio of impugned Judgment:\">Ratio of impugned Judgment:<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Facts\" title=\"Facts:\">Facts:<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#What_was_the_allegation_against_Google\" title=\"What was the allegation against Google?\">What was the allegation against Google?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#The_Ads_Programme_Previously_known_as_Google_AdWords\" title=\"The Ads Programme (Previously known as Google AdWords):\">The Ads Programme (Previously known as Google AdWords):<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Present_case\" title=\"Present case:\">Present case:<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Google%E2%80%99s_contentions\" title=\"Google\u2019s contentions:\">Google\u2019s contentions:<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#DRS%E2%80%99s_contentions\" title=\"DRS\u2019s contentions:\">DRS\u2019s contentions:<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Issues\" title=\"Issues:\">Issues:<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Whether_use_of_the_trademarks_as_keywords_amounts_to_%E2%80%9Cuse%E2%80%9D_under_TMA\" title=\"Whether use of the trademarks as keywords amounts to \u201cuse\u201d under TMA?\">Whether use of the trademarks as keywords amounts to \u201cuse\u201d under TMA?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#if_so_whether_such_use_is_that_of_the_advertiser_or_by_Google_as_well\" title=\"if so, whether such use is that of the advertiser or by Google as well;\">if so, whether such use is that of the advertiser or by Google as well;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#whether_the_use_of_the_trademark_as_keywords_per_se_amounts_to_infringement_of_a_trademark\" title=\"whether the use of the trademark as keywords per se amounts to infringement of a trademark;\">whether the use of the trademark as keywords per se amounts to infringement of a trademark;<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3'><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Contributory_Infringement_by_Google\" title=\"Contributory Infringement by Google?:\">Contributory Infringement by Google?:<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Google_%E2%80%93_Liability_under_Section_79_IT_Act\" title=\"Google \u2013 Liability under Section 79 IT Act?\">Google \u2013 Liability under Section 79 IT Act?<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#Conclusion\" title=\"Conclusion:\">Conclusion:<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_appeal_was_preferred\"><\/span>Why appeal was preferred?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Single Judge\u2019s vide Judgement dt. 30.10. 2021 allowed Respondent\u2019s Injunction application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_exactly_was_directed_vide_the_impugned_Judgement\"><\/span>What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiff (Ptf.) can seek protection u\/s 28 of the TM Act, but cannot have right on surnames\/generic words like Packers or Movers individually. Subject to this limitation, Injunction application was allowed in following manner:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol type=\"1\">\n<li>Defendant (Def.) 1-3 to investigate any complaint made by plaintiff alleging use of TM and its variation as keywords resulting in diversion of traffic form Ptf\u2019s website to that of advertisers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Def. 1-3 to investigate and review overall effect of an Ad to ascertain that same is not infringing\/passing off the Ptf\u2019s TM.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If its passing off \/ infringement, then Def. 1-3 shall restrain advertiser from using same and block\/remove such ad.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ratio_of_impugned_Judgment\"><\/span>Ratio of impugned Judgment:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Use of TM as keywords in Google Ads Program amounts to <strong>\u2018use\u2019<\/strong> under TM Act and thus may constitute <strong>infringement.<\/strong> Google will also be not entitled to defence of an intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Appellant: Google | Resp. \u2013 1: DRS Logistics P. Ltd. | Resp. \u2013 2: Agarwal Packers and Movers P. Ltd. [Resp. 1 and 2 collectively referred as DRS, which are leading packaging, moving and logistics service providers in India.]\n\n\n\n<p>DRS\u2019s registered TM is \u2018Aggarwal Packers and Movers\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_was_the_allegation_against_Google\"><\/span>What was the allegation against Google?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>That Google actively encourages use of respondent\u2019s., registered TMs as keywords for 3<sup>rd<\/sup> parties to display their sponsored links, which amounts to TM infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Ads_Programme_Previously_known_as_Google_AdWords\"><\/span>The Ads Programme (Previously known as Google AdWords):<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Advertisers can create and display online ad w.r.t their websites. Said adv. Appears on first page (SERP \u2013 Search Engine Result Page). One can reserve a keyword. Say Lexus India, may reserve \u2018Audi\u2019, wherein anyone searching Audi, the Google will shows result of \u2018Lexus India\u2019 on top of Search result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Advertiser first create new campaign for advertisement. Advertiser then set an \u2018avg daily budget\u2019, then chooses targeting options like location\/languages\/etc. Then keyword is chosen. On typing those keywords by user, the ad will get triggered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Google provides \u2018keyword planner tool\u2019 to assist user in selecting a keyword. The tool shows the advertiser, the volume of searches made for that particular keyword.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then advertiser bid for that keyword. Advertisers don\u2019t pay on impression i.e., how many times it appears on SERP. Rather it\u2019s paid on basis of \u2018how many times it was clicked \u2013 Pay per Click (PPC)\u2019. Advertiser also pay bid <em>qua<\/em> the maximum price they are willing to pay if user clicks i.e., \u2018Max CPC\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The sequence on which Ad will be placed is also decided on basis of \u2018Click through rate\u2019 (CTR). Google estimates rate at which viewers will click an ad. More CTR \u2013 More relevant keyword. Google also check if landing page experience (website \u2013 user experience) and how closely ad is likely to match user\u2019s search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The above factors are used by Google to estimate Quality Score. High Quality Score and bid amount of advertiser creates the position at which ad will appear in SERP. Advertiser pay more and improve quality of website to improve Ad position. Ad\u2019s position at top of SERP will yield more CTR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Present_case\"><\/span>Present case:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>On googling the word \u2018AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS\u2019, 3<sup>rd<\/sup> parties sites like \u2018www.safepackersmovers.com\u2019 and \u2018www.dtccargopackers.com\u2019 used to come on SERP. These sites have no connection with DRS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Google%E2%80%99s_contentions\"><\/span><strong>Google\u2019s contentions:<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Use of keywords does not amount to \u2018use\u2019. Even if considered \u2018use\u2019 under TM Act \u2013 It will be a \u2018use\u2019 by advertiser and not Google <em>per se. <\/em>Google also sought \u2018safe harbour\u2019 protection under Section 79 of IT Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Use of trademark as keyword not <em>per se<\/em> infringement of a trademark. The said position have been accepted by courts across jurisdictions of UK, USA, EU, Australia, NZ, Russia, South Africa, Canada, Spain, Italy, Japan and China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In India, test of confusion is based on perceptibility of mark by consumer in terms of visual, phonetic and structural similarity. Since keywords are invisible, to consumers, necessary element of confusion is absent. In absence of confusion \u2013 no infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rebutted Ld. SJ\u2019s reasoning \u2013 Meta Tags and keywords are different. Meta tags are website descriptors and keyword is word provided by advertiser. Meta tag neither used by Google in organic search result or as part of sponsored link. Meta-tags are an outdated form of tech that is not used by Google for over a decade and not equivalent to keywords.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Diversion of internet traffic on account of use of TM as keywords is matter of trial. Requires evidence to be led on issue and can\u2019t be decided at interim stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Google is entitled to safe harbor, since it has a content neutral role as advertisement as well as keywords comprises of 3<sup>rd<\/sup> parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"DRS%E2%80%99s_contentions\"><\/span>DRS\u2019s contentions:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Google can\u2019t claim \u2018safe harbour\u2019 protection under Section 79 of IT Act. It actively participates in promoting sponsored Ads. It itself determine \u2018keywords\u2019 which is relevant to goods and services of advertisers. Hence its not a passive intermediary as claimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Keyword and Meta tag perform similar functions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Keyword planner tool clearly satisfies necessary element for infringement of trademark. Google through use of said tool informs advertiser about DRS\u2019s TM. Google relied on various international decisions that held that invisible use of TM in keywords does not amount to \u2018use\u2019 and same is erroneous, since none of those cases discuss Keyword Planner Tool. Use of TM by said tool is not invisible but visible to advertisers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues\"><\/span>Issues:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>whether use of the trademarks as keywords amounts to use of those marks for the purposes of Section 29 of the TM Act;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>if so, whether such use is that of the advertiser or by Google as well;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether the use of the trademark as keywords per se amounts to infringement of a trademark; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>if so, whether Google is absolved of its liability in respect of use of trademarks as keywords by virtue of being an intermediary under Section 79 of IT Act<em><\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Whether_use_of_the_trademarks_as_keywords_amounts_to_%E2%80%9Cuse%E2%80%9D_under_TMA\"><\/span><strong>Whether use of the trademarks as keywords amounts to \u201cuse\u201d under TMA?<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The use of a trademark as keywords for display of advertisements in respect of goods or services clearly amounts to use of the trademark in advertising within the meaning of Section 29(6) of the TM Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The use of a trademark as a keyword by an advertiser for the purposes of displaying its advertisements on the Search Engine, is use of the mark in relation to the goods and services offered by an advertiser.<strong><u><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"if_so_whether_such_use_is_that_of_the_advertiser_or_by_Google_as_well\"><\/span><strong>if so, whether such use is that of the advertiser or by Google as well;<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Google actively promotes and encourages the use of trademarks identified with the leading goods and service providers-which apparently yield a higher incidence of search queries in respect of a particular category of goods and services-as keywords by suggesting the same and further monetizing their value. In our view Google&#8217;s PPC model, which actively uses keywords, derives a distinct advantage by use of trademarks as keywords.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"whether_the_use_of_the_trademark_as_keywords_per_se_amounts_to_infringement_of_a_trademark\"><\/span>whether the use of the trademark as keywords per se amounts to infringement of a trademark;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>use of a registered trademark as a keyword, absent of any confusion, dilution, or compromise of the trademark, would not amount to infringement of the trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Use of a trademark as keyword is, essentially, to seek the attention of the internet users who may find information relating to goods and services covered under the said trademark as relevant. We find nothing illegal in seeking out such internet users as targets for advertisements that they may find relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Any person using an internet search engine such as that operated by Google for finding information relating to a search query is obviously aware that all search results may not be relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Clearly, the facts of each case are required to be considered in determining whether in a given case use of a trademark as a keyword amounts to infringement under the TM Act<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>the use of the trademark as a keyword coupled with the display of a sponsored link must have real likelihood of confusion. Mere generation of interest in the sponsored link without any likelihood of confusion cannot be construed as infringement of a trademark. It is necessary to be careful to not conflate initial interest with the Doctrine of &#8216;Initial Interest Confusion&#8217;. Thus, sponsored links may be relevant to the search query and what the internet user is searching for. It may thus generate interest that would obviously not constitute infringement of a registered trademark under Section 29(2) of the TM Act, if there is no deception or confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Contributory_Infringement_by_Google\"><\/span>Contributory Infringement by Google?:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It is not necessary for us to consider this aspect in any detail at this interlocutory stage. The same would be a matter of trial provided DRS has laid a foundation for the action of contributory infringement in its pleadings and it produces evidence to establish the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Google_%E2%80%93_Liability_under_Section_79_IT_Act\"><\/span>Google \u2013 Liability under Section 79 IT Act?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>the said benefit would be unavailable to Google if its alleged activities are found to be infringing DRS&#8217;s trademarks<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Google&#8217;s use of the trademarks as keywords does amount to use in advertising under the TM Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>if it is found that Google has infringed DRS&#8217;s trademark or is contributorily liable for the same, the benefit of safe harbour under Section 79(1) of the IT Act would not be available to it<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-file\"><object class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Google-v-DRS-Logistics-pdf.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of Google-v-DRS-Logistics-pdf.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-6e28d986-1fd6-49fd-a1da-708061db52e0\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Google-v-DRS-Logistics-pdf.pdf\">Google-v-DRS-Logistics-pdf<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Google-v-DRS-Logistics-pdf.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-6e28d986-1fd6-49fd-a1da-708061db52e0\">Download<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case details: Google LLC v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. &amp; Ors., FAO (OS) (COMM) 2\/2022 Coram: HMJ Vibhu Bakhru and HMJ Amit Mahajan Why appeal was preferred? Single Judge\u2019s vide Judgement dt. 30.10. 2021 allowed Respondent\u2019s Injunction application. What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement? Plaintiff (Ptf.) can seek protection u\/s 28 of the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":102,"featured_media":11597,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3284,50],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.8.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case details: Google LLC v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. &amp; Ors., FAO (OS) (COMM) 2\/2022 Coram: HMJ Vibhu Bakhru and HMJ Amit Mahajan Why appeal was preferred? Single Judge\u2019s vide Judgement dt. 30.10. 2021 allowed Respondent\u2019s Injunction application. What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement? Plaintiff (Ptf.) can seek protection u\/s 28 of the [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Google-v.-DRS.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"675\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rohit Pradhan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Rohit Pradhan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Rohit Pradhan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/04167cd13bd944a0442fd6b1d45ac4af\"},\"headline\":\"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\"},\"wordCount\":1591,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Fintech Law\",\"Intellectual Property Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\",\"name\":\"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/04167cd13bd944a0442fd6b1d45ac4af\",\"name\":\"Rohit Pradhan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/IMG_1357-min-compressed-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/IMG_1357-min-compressed-scaled.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Rohit Pradhan\"},\"description\":\"Rohit Pradhan is a distinguished lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court of India, High Court, and various other courts and tribunals in Delhi and the Delhi NCR. He is an esteemed member of the Bar Council of Delhi, with a passion for delivering justice and upholding the law. Rohit's extensive legal expertise and dedication to his profession are well-recognized in the field. Notably, he is the author of the comprehensive legal resource, 'Franchise Laws in India', a book graced with a Foreword penned by none other than the former Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana. Despite his prolific career, Rohit's intent with this website is not to solicit his profession but to impart knowledge and awareness about consumer rights and legalities, thereby empowering citizens to navigate the legal landscape with confidence.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/in.linkedin.com\/in\/rohit-pradhan-04999617a\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@RohitPradhan\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti","og_description":"Case details: Google LLC v. DRS Logistics P. Ltd. &amp; Ors., FAO (OS) (COMM) 2\/2022 Coram: HMJ Vibhu Bakhru and HMJ Amit Mahajan Why appeal was preferred? Single Judge\u2019s vide Judgement dt. 30.10. 2021 allowed Respondent\u2019s Injunction application. What exactly was directed vide the impugned Judgement? Plaintiff (Ptf.) can seek protection u\/s 28 of the [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":675,"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Google-v.-DRS.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Rohit Pradhan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Rohit Pradhan","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/"},"author":{"name":"Rohit Pradhan","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/04167cd13bd944a0442fd6b1d45ac4af"},"headline":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis","datePublished":"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/"},"wordCount":1591,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Fintech Law","Intellectual Property Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/","name":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-05-07T12:51:34+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-07T12:51:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/google-drs-logistics\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/04167cd13bd944a0442fd6b1d45ac4af","name":"Rohit Pradhan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/IMG_1357-min-compressed-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/IMG_1357-min-compressed-scaled.jpg","caption":"Rohit Pradhan"},"description":"Rohit Pradhan is a distinguished lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court of India, High Court, and various other courts and tribunals in Delhi and the Delhi NCR. He is an esteemed member of the Bar Council of Delhi, with a passion for delivering justice and upholding the law. Rohit's extensive legal expertise and dedication to his profession are well-recognized in the field. Notably, he is the author of the comprehensive legal resource, 'Franchise Laws in India', a book graced with a Foreword penned by none other than the former Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana. Despite his prolific career, Rohit's intent with this website is not to solicit his profession but to impart knowledge and awareness about consumer rights and legalities, thereby empowering citizens to navigate the legal landscape with confidence.","sameAs":["https:\/\/in.linkedin.com\/in\/rohit-pradhan-04999617a","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@RohitPradhan"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/editor\/"}]}},"views":837,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11596"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/102"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11596"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11596\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11599,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11596\/revisions\/11599"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11597"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}