{"id":41836,"date":"2026-05-30T06:10:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-30T06:10:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/?p=41836"},"modified":"2026-05-30T07:01:48","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T07:01:48","slug":"competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads? The 2026 Reality"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Legal \/ Trademark Guide<\/p>\n

\n

Quick Answer<\/h2>\n

In India, the answer changed permanently in May 2026. The Delhi High Court ruled in Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC<\/em> that using a registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword \u2014 even if the brand name never appears visibly in the ad \u2014 constitutes trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Both the competitor bidding on your keyword and Google enabling it face direct legal liability. If your trademark is registered in India, you now have legal grounds to act. AdSpyder helps you see who is bidding on your brand<\/a> and build the evidence you need to do something about it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

You built the brand. Someone else bought it as a keyword. Every time a customer searches your name on Google, a competitor’s ad appears above your result \u2014 and Google collected a fee for making that happen.<\/p>\n

For years, Indian trademark owners had no clean legal route to stop this. Courts were inconsistent. Google claimed safe harbour. Competitors argued that since their brand name never appeared in the visible ad, there was no trademark use.<\/p>\n

On May 22, 2026, the Delhi High Court closed that gap permanently. The ruling in Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC<\/strong> established that invisible keyword bidding on a registered Indian trademark is infringement, that Google is not a neutral intermediary, and that both the platform and the advertiser face direct liability. Nithin Kamath of Zerodha and Anupam Mittal of Shaadi.com \u2014 both of whom had dealt with this problem on their own brands \u2014 publicly called it a long-overdue change. This guide explains what it means, what the data shows about how widespread the problem is, and what you can do about it.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

8.52M<\/p>\n

brand-headline ads analysed<\/p>\n

Across 25 major brand auctions \u2014 counts only ads with brand name visibly in copy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

13.1%<\/p>\n

from non-brand advertisers<\/p>\n

This is a floor \u2014 competitors bidding without using brand name in copy are not counted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

164.7M+<\/p>\n

Google Search ads indexed<\/p>\n

AdSpyder platform data, May 2026.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In This Article<\/p>\n

The Hindware Ruling<\/a>
\nWhat Changed<\/a>
\nScale of the Problem<\/a>
\nUS, EU & UK<\/a>
\nIndia Data<\/a>
\n6 Bidder Types<\/a>
\nPhrases to Watch<\/a>
\nWhat to Do<\/a>
\nHow to Monitor<\/a>
\nFAQ<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The Ruling That Changed Brand Bidding Law in India: Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC, May 2026<\/h2>\n

On May 22, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court delivered a 163-page judgment in Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC [CS(COMM) 591\/2017]<\/strong>. The court permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from using “HINDWARE” or any deceptively similar variation as an advertising keyword, and ordered \u20b930 lakh in nominal damages.<\/p>\n

Hindware is a coined trademark with no dictionary meaning. Any user searching for it is specifically looking for Hindware products \u2014 there is no ambiguity about intent. The case began when competitors Grohe India and Cera Sanitaryware bought “HINDWARE” as a keyword through Google Ads, causing sponsored competitor ads to appear above Hindware’s own organic result. Grohe and Cera eventually settled. Google contested the case for nine years<\/strong>, arguing it was a neutral intermediary protected by Section 79 of the IT Act. The court rejected that argument on every substantive ground.<\/p>\n

The court also held that Google “seizes and sells” commercial value it has no lawful right to exploit \u2014 and that it forces trademark owners to bid on their own brand names just to appear above competitors in their own search results.<\/p>\n

Four findings every brand owner and legal team needs to know:<\/p>\n

\n

1. Invisible keyword use equals trademark infringement<\/p>\n

The trademark never appears in the visible ad. The court held this does not matter. Backend keyword use qualifies as trademark use under Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>. A competitor does not need to write your brand name in their headline for infringement to exist. The invisible traffic diversion is the infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

2. Google lost its safe harbour protection<\/p>\n

Section 79 of the IT Act protects passive intermediaries. The court stripped that protection because Google’s Keyword Planner actively suggests trademarked terms to advertisers during campaign setup, and Google earns direct revenue from every click on those keywords. That is active participation, not passive hosting. The ruling establishes that a platform loses intermediary protection when it algorithmically determines who receives information and profits from that determination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

3. The advertiser is also liable \u2014 not just the platform<\/p>\n

Advertisers bidding on a competitor’s registered trademark as a keyword face direct legal risk under this judgment. Liability applies to the advertiser doing the bidding, not only to Google. If a competitor is bidding on your registered Indian trademark, they can no longer hide behind platform policies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

4. The precedent is binding and immediately useful<\/p>\n

This Delhi High Court ruling sets binding precedent within its jurisdiction and is highly persuasive across other Indian High Courts. It gives Indian trademark owners a documented legal basis to demand enforcement from both the platform and the competitor \u2014 something they did not have before.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

163<\/p>\n

Pages in the judgment<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u20b930L<\/p>\n

Nominal damages to Hindware<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

9 yrs<\/p>\n

Google contested the case<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sec 29<\/p>\n

Trade Marks Act, 1999 invoked<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Source: Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC & Ors., CS(COMM) 591\/2017 & 592\/2017, Delhi High Court, May 22, 2026.<\/p>\n

\n

Full ruling breakdown<\/p>\n

AdSpyder has published a detailed analysis covering the 13-year case timeline, every legal finding, and exactly what Indian brand owners should do now: Delhi HC Brand Bidding Ruling 2026: What Hindware vs Google Means for Every Indian Brand \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

What the Ruling Actually Changed for Indian Brand Owners<\/h2>\n

Before May 22, 2026, an Indian brand facing competitor keyword bidding had two realistic paths: file a Google trademark complaint (slow, uncertain, and ineffective for invisible keyword use) or pursue litigation with inconsistent results \u2014 courts were still divided on whether invisible keyword triggers constituted trademark use. Both paths changed.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Action<\/th>\nBefore ruling<\/th>\nAfter ruling<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Google trademark complaint<\/td>\nIneffective for invisible keyword use \u2014 Google’s policy only restricted visible ad-copy use.<\/td>\nGoogle faces legal exposure for non-action; complaint carries significantly greater leverage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Legal notice to competitor<\/td>\nGrey area \u2014 advertisers could argue invisible keyword use was not trademark infringement.<\/td>\nInvisible keyword use is confirmed infringement. Legal notice carries binding legal weight.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Court injunction<\/td>\nContested legal basis; typically years of proceedings with uncertain outcome.<\/td>\nBinding precedent; interim injunction applications on significantly stronger footing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Platform demand letter to Google<\/td>\nGoogle invoked Section 79 IT Act safe harbour to dismiss liability.<\/td>\nSafe harbour stripped where platform actively suggests trademarked keywords and profits from them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Important caveat<\/p>\n

The Hindware ruling is a single-judge Delhi High Court order. It is binding precedent within its jurisdiction and highly persuasive in other Indian High Courts \u2014 but it is not a Supreme Court ruling and may be challenged on appeal. Consult a qualified IP attorney before formal legal action. This blog does not constitute legal advice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Monitor trademark misuse<\/p>\n

See who is bidding on your brand name before it costs you<\/h2>\n

AdSpyder indexes 164M+ Google Search ads across 100+ countries. Search your brand name and see exactly which competitors are running ads \u2014 their copy, their landing pages, their history \u2014 and build the evidence package the Hindware ruling now requires.<\/p>\n

Try AdSpyder Free<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

How Widespread Is Brand Bidding? AdSpyder’s Data Across 25 Major Brands<\/h2>\n

The Hindware ruling matters because the problem it addresses is enormous. AdSpyder analysed 8,523,737 Google Search ads across 25 of the world’s most-searched brand keyword auctions \u2014 counting only ads where the brand name appeared visibly in the ad headline (the legally riskier visible subset). One in eight of those ads came from a non-brand advertiser.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Brand<\/th>\nBrand-headline ads<\/th>\nNon-brand share<\/th>\nWho is bidding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Netflix<\/td>\n57,001<\/td>\n72.1%<\/td>\nVPN providers, rival streaming services<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Booking.com<\/td>\n348,582<\/td>\n69.9%<\/td>\nAgoda, Trivago, Expedia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Samsung<\/td>\n747,122<\/td>\n54.4%<\/td>\nAmazon, Croma, Trendyol \u2014 resellers<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nike<\/td>\n824,734<\/td>\n47.5%<\/td>\nASOS, JD Sports, Farfetch<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Adobe<\/td>\n302,379<\/td>\n15.1%<\/td>\nFilmora, Wondershare \u2014 direct alternatives<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Shopify<\/td>\n155,535<\/td>\n13.3%<\/td>\nEcwid, competing e-commerce platforms<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mercado Libre<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n0.0%<\/td>\nNear zero \u2014 platform dominance as natural defence<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Source: AdSpyder Google Search Ads archive \u2014 25-brand sample (8.5M ads), May 2026. Counts only ads with brand name visibly in headline.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Outside India: US, EU, and UK Rules Are Still Different<\/h2>\n
\n

The Hindware ruling is India-specific<\/p>\n

In the US, EU, and UK, keyword-only bidding \u2014 using a brand as a trigger without showing the brand name in the visible ad \u2014 is still generally permitted. These jurisdictions assess risk based on visible ad copy, likelihood of consumer confusion, and whether the ad affects the trademark’s origin function. This section covers those rules for brands with international exposure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Market<\/th>\nLegal direction<\/th>\nWhat to monitor<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
United States<\/td>\nLanham Act; courts focus on likely consumer confusion. Keyword bidding alone is often insufficient for a trademark claim without confusion evidence from visible copy or landing page.<\/td>\nAd headline and description, landing page claims, display URL, and whether ads suggest affiliation with your brand.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
European Union<\/td>\nGoogle France \/ Louis Vuitton (ECJ) separated platform liability from advertiser conduct. Advertiser risk remains if the ad prevents average users from understanding the commercial origin of the product or service.<\/td>\nWhether the ad makes commercial origin clear to an average user.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
United Kingdom<\/td>\nInterflora-style analysis \u2014 does the ad affect the trademark’s origin function or create confusion about affiliation? “Honest practices” standard for comparative advertising.<\/td>\nAffiliate confusion, “official” claims, and ambiguous ads. AdSpyder shows 30,232 UK ads using “alternative to” phrasing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
India<\/td>\nPost-Hindware: invisible keyword use is confirmed trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Both bidding advertiser and the platform face direct liability.<\/td>\nAny competitor keyword bid on your registered trademark \u2014 visible or invisible. The standard is now unambiguous and the remedies are clear.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

India Data: Brand Bidding Is Severe in Travel, Electronics, and Fashion<\/h2>\n

AdSpyder’s India-filtered Google Search data shows brand-headline conquesting rates that are dramatically higher than global averages in several key categories \u2014 making the Hindware ruling especially significant for brands operating in these sectors.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

78.4%<\/p>\n

Booking.com \u2014 India<\/p>\n

MakeMyTrip, RedBus, Goibibo, Cleartrip dominate brand-headline ads<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

73.8%<\/p>\n

Nike \u2014 India<\/p>\n

Amazon.in, Ajio, Myntra in Nike brand searches<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

50.2%<\/p>\n

Samsung \u2014 India<\/p>\n

Croma, Reliance Digital, Vijay Sales in Samsung brand searches<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Source: AdSpyder Google Search Ads archive \u2014 India country filter, May 2026. Counts ads with brand name visibly in headline only.<\/p>\n

The other side of this picture matters too: Indian-native platforms are well-defended on their own keywords. Flipkart’s non-brand share is just 2.4%. Myntra is 3.3%. Amazon India is 3.0%. Brands with strong domestic platform lock-in \u2014 and likely active brand keyword defence \u2014 hold their own search real estate effectively.<\/p>\n

\n

Triage before acting<\/p>\n

Much of the brand bidding visible in India’s Google Ads data comes from authorized retailers and major marketplaces \u2014 Amazon.in on Samsung, Myntra on Nike. That is a reseller dynamic, not a trademark violation. A legal notice to Amazon.in for selling your Samsung products is a different situation from a legal notice to a lookalike “official Samsung India” ad. Use the six-category framework below before deciding your response.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The 6 Types of Advertisers on Your Brand Search \u2014 and What Each Requires<\/h2>\n

Not every advertiser appearing on your brand search is a trademark violator. Correctly classifying them before sending a legal notice or complaint matters \u2014 especially in India, where the Hindware ruling gives you real leverage and misdirected complaints waste it.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Bidder type<\/th>\nExample from AdSpyder data<\/th>\nIndia post-Hindware<\/th>\nFirst response<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Direct competitor<\/td>\nFilmora: 2,560 ads with “Adobe” in headline<\/td>\nActionable \u2014 legal notice + Google complaint<\/td>\nDocument evidence, consult IP attorney, file Google complaint citing Hindware precedent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Impostor \/ “official site” lookalike<\/td>\n3.19M ads using “official site” \u2014 vast majority from non-brand advertisers<\/td>\nCritical \u2014 highest legal risk category<\/td>\nGoogle trademark complaint + IP attorney + domain takedown for clone landing pages<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Unauthorized coupon \/ voucher site<\/td>\nCouponCause: 1,905 ads with “Udemy” in headline<\/td>\nActionable \u2014 affiliate terms + legal notice<\/td>\nCease-and-desist to site owner; affiliate programme revocation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Authorized affiliate violating programme terms<\/td>\nRegistered affiliates bidding on brand keywords against programme agreement<\/td>\nProgramme enforcement first<\/td>\nDirect reminder; account suspension if repeated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Review \/ comparison site<\/td>\n3.33M ads use “review” or “reviews” across archive<\/td>\nGenerally permitted \u2014 editorial defence<\/td>\nClaim your listing; bid on your own review terms to maintain impression share<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Authorized reseller \/ marketplace<\/td>\nAmazon.in: 15,386 ads with “Samsung” in headline \u2014 selling genuine Samsung products<\/td>\nLower risk \u2014 commercial lever, not legal<\/td>\nNegotiate brand-keyword restrictions in reseller agreement; generally tolerate if traffic reaches your product<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Use AdSpyder’s URL and Domain Analysis<\/a> to inspect suspicious advertiser domains \u2014 their full ad history, platforms covered, and landing page destinations \u2014 before deciding which category you are dealing with.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

10 Ad Phrases That Signal Brand Bidding \u2014 and Their Risk Level<\/h2>\n

Across 164.7 million Google Search ads in AdSpyder’s archive, these are the linguistic signatures that brand and legal teams need to monitor. In India, all of these now carry more weight \u2014 any phrase tied to a registered trademark keyword bid can constitute infringement under the Hindware precedent.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Phrase<\/th>\nAds in archive<\/th>\nRisk signal<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
“official site”<\/td>\n3,187,192<\/td>\nHighest impersonation risk. Volume far exceeds legitimate official brand sites.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“review” \/ “reviews”<\/td>\n3,332,768<\/td>\nGenerally permitted \u2014 but often an affiliate bridge to competitor products.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“compare prices”<\/td>\n475,331<\/td>\nComparison sites \u2014 permitted if claims are accurate.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“alternative to”<\/td>\n268,596<\/td>\nExplicit competitor positioning. In India, actionable under Hindware if tied to keyword bidding on a registered mark.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“genuine”<\/td>\n274,117<\/td>\nUsed by both brand defenders and counterfeit sellers \u2014 verify domain before assuming intent.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“vs”<\/td>\n254,940<\/td>\nDirect comparison \u2014 requires factually accurate, verifiable claims.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“authorized” \/ “authorised”<\/td>\n171,498<\/td>\nAbused by unauthorized resellers. Verify against your actual authorized partner list.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“better than”<\/td>\n82,642<\/td>\nComparative advertising \u2014 permissible if claims are verifiable and non-disparaging.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“official store”<\/td>\n199,419<\/td>\nHigh-risk variant of “official site” \u2014 same impostor population concern.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“trademark”<\/td>\n26,590<\/td>\nTypically brand-defensive copy used by brand owners themselves.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Source: AdSpyder Google Search Ads archive \u2014 full-index phrase counts, May 2026.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What to Do for Each Type of Brand Bidder<\/h2>\n
\n

Impostor \/ “Official Site” lookalike \u2014 act immediately<\/p>\n

File a Google Ads trademark complaint with your AdSpyder evidence export attached. In India: send a legal notice simultaneously to both the advertiser and Google under the Hindware precedent \u2014 invisible keyword use is confirmed infringement, you do not need the brand visible in ad copy to act. If the landing page clones yours, file a DMCA takedown with the hosting provider and a domain abuse report with the registrar.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Direct competitor \u2014 counter and enforce<\/p>\n

Run a strong branded campaign on exact-match keywords \u2014 you almost always earn a higher Quality Score on your own brand name, meaning you pay less to hold top position. Sharpen ad copy with a specific offer or USP. In India: the Hindware ruling gives you grounds to file a Google trademark complaint and send a legal notice even for invisible keyword use. Counter-bidding on the competitor’s brand keyword often creates a deterrent dynamic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Unauthorized affiliate or coupon site<\/p>\n

Send a written cease-and-desist to the site owner. File a Google Ads trademark complaint if their ad copy uses your brand name visibly. If they hold an affiliate contract, flag the violation and deny commission on disputed transactions. In India: the Hindware ruling applies to invisible keyword use too.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Authorized affiliate violating programme terms<\/p>\n

Check your affiliate agreement \u2014 most explicitly prohibit brand keyword bidding. A direct reminder is usually sufficient for established affiliates who want to keep the relationship. If they persist, suspend or terminate their account. Add the prohibition as a hard gate during onboarding going forward.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Review or comparison site<\/p>\n

Engage editorially \u2014 claim your listing, respond to reviews, push for a stronger position in their rankings. Bid on your own “[brand] review” and “[brand] vs [competitor]” terms to own that real estate. Use AdSpyder’s Landing Page Analysis<\/a> to see where they send your brand searchers. Maintaining 95%+ brand impression share is your primary defence here.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Authorized reseller or marketplace<\/p>\n

Generally tolerate \u2014 the marketplace is selling your product and the conversion still benefits you. If their bid pushes you below position 1, increase your own branded campaign bids. If they crowd your direct-channel revenue significantly, negotiate brand-keyword restrictions in the reseller agreement amendment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

How to Monitor Your Brand \u2014 and Build the Evidence the Hindware Ruling Requires<\/h2>\n

A manual Google search in Incognito once a month is not brand monitoring. It shows one result, in one location, at one moment \u2014 and it misses historical campaigns, international bidding, and the evidence trail that legal action now requires.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

1. Search your brand in AdSpyder’s Google Ads archive<\/p>\n

Go to AdSpyder’s Google Ads Spy<\/a> and search your exact brand name. Filter by country to see how the picture differs across your key markets. You will see every advertiser whose ads used your brand in the headline \u2014 their domain, full ad copy, landing page URL, and first and last seen dates. Extend the search to brand + “review”, brand + “coupon”, brand + “official site”, and brand + “alternative” to catch all six attack types.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

2. Classify each advertiser before taking action<\/p>\n

Run suspicious domains through AdSpyder’s Domain Analysis<\/a> to see their full ad portfolio and platform coverage. Use the six-category framework above to classify each one. Do not send a legal notice to an authorized retailer selling your own products.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

3. Document the evidence package immediately<\/p>\n

For legal action in India, you need: advertiser domain, full headline and description, first and last seen dates, destination URL, country, and your trademark registration certificate. AdSpyder’s export covers the first five. The archive stores historical ad data going back to 2008 \u2014 ads that have already been taken down may still be retrievable as evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

4. Run the same search cross-platform<\/p>\n

Brand bidding rarely stays on one platform. Run your brand name search on Meta<\/a>, Bing<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, and LinkedIn<\/a>. The same competitor often runs parallel campaigns across platforms simultaneously.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

5. Make it ongoing \u2014 not a one-time audit<\/p>\n

New advertisers appear after complaint approvals. Seasonal campaigns spike around your own promotions. Monitoring needs to be continuous. AdSpyder is building a real-time Brand Keyword Alert<\/strong> feature that will notify you the moment a new competitor ad appears on your brand keyword across platforms \u2014 closing the detection gap that causes most brands to discover violations only after traffic has already leaked. Learn more about AdSpyder trademark monitoring \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Brand Protection Checklist<\/p>\n

\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nTrademark registered in all key markets \u2014 India, US, EU, and UK may each require separate filings.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nAdSpyder brand-name search run across Google, Meta, Bing, and YouTube this month to establish baseline.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nEach flagged advertiser domain classified by type before any legal action is taken.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nGoogle Ads trademark complaint filed for competitors using your trademark in visible ad copy. In India: also filed for invisible keyword use under the Hindware precedent.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nAuthorized resellers and affiliates listed as exceptions in the Google trademark complaint to avoid blocking legitimate partners.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nAffiliate programme terms explicitly prohibit brand keyword bidding \u2014 enforced, not just stated in writing.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nYour own branded campaigns active and bidding competitively on brand terms \u2014 you almost always win on Quality Score.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2713<\/span>
\nIP attorney consulted before formal legal action, especially for India post-Hindware and EU-specific cases.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

AdSpyder Trademark Monitoring<\/p>\n

Find out who is bidding on your brand \u2014 and build the evidence to stop it<\/p>\n

Search your brand name across AdSpyder’s 164M+ Google Search ad archive. See every advertiser \u2014 historical and live \u2014 and export the evidence package you need for a Google trademark complaint or legal action in India under the Hindware precedent.<\/p>\n

Monitor Your Brand \u2014 Try AdSpyder Free<\/a><\/p>\n

88,000+ competitor-ad searches run \u00a0\u00b7\u00a0 8,663 active monitoring projects \u00a0\u00b7\u00a0 164M+ Google Search ads indexed<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n
\nCan competitors legally bid on my brand name in Google Ads in India after the Hindware ruling?<\/summary>\n
\n

After Hindware Ltd. v. Google LLC<\/em> (May 22, 2026), no \u2014 not for registered Indian trademarks. The Delhi High Court ruled that bidding on a registered trademark as a Google Ads keyword constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 \u2014 even if the brand name never appears visibly in the ad. Both the bidding advertiser and the platform enabling it face direct legal liability. Consult a qualified IP attorney before formal action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nDoes the Hindware ruling apply even if my brand name is not visible in the competitor’s ad?<\/summary>\n
\n

Yes \u2014 this is the ruling’s most significant finding. Justice Pushkarna held that it is not necessary for the trademark to physically appear in the visible ad. Using it as a backend keyword trigger qualifies as trademark use under Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The invisible traffic diversion is the infringement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nHow do I find out if a competitor is bidding on my brand name?<\/summary>\n
\n

Search your brand name in AdSpyder’s Google Ads Spy<\/a>. Any advertiser domain that is not yours is a candidate. You will see their full ad copy, landing page URL, and first and last seen dates across 164M+ indexed ads. Also search brand + “coupon”, brand + “official site”, brand + “alternative”, and brand + “vs” to catch all attack patterns. A manual Incognito search only shows one result in one location at one moment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nWhat evidence do I need to act under the Hindware ruling?<\/summary>\n
\n

You need: (1) the infringer’s advertiser domain, (2) full ad headline and description, (3) first and last seen dates, (4) destination landing page URL, (5) the country the ad ran in, and (6) your Indian trademark registration certificate. AdSpyder’s export covers items 1 through 5. Consult an IP attorney on structuring the evidence package for a legal notice or court application.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nWhich industries face the worst brand bidding problem in India?<\/summary>\n
\n

Travel sees the highest rates \u2014 Booking.com loses 78.4% of its Indian brand headline ad space to MakeMyTrip, RedBus, Goibibo, and Cleartrip. Fashion is significant \u2014 Nike loses 73.8% to Amazon.in, Ajio, and Myntra. Electronics is also high \u2014 Samsung loses 50.2% to Croma, Reliance Digital, and Vijay Sales. Much of this involves authorized retailers; classify carefully before legal action. (AdSpyder platform data, May 2026.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nDoes the Hindware ruling apply outside India?<\/summary>\n
\n

No. The ruling is specific to India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction. In the US, EU, and UK, keyword-only bidding \u2014 where the brand name is used only as a backend trigger and does not appear in visible ad copy \u2014 is generally still permitted. Visible trademark use in ad copy carries higher risk in those markets, but the legal frameworks and remedies differ significantly from India’s post-Hindware position.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n

\nShould I run my own branded campaigns if I already rank number one organically?<\/summary>\n
\n

Yes \u2014 especially if competitors are bidding on your brand terms. Organic position one does not prevent a competitor’s paid ad from appearing above your organic result. Your own branded campaign acts as a defensive floor at very low cost, because you earn the highest Quality Score for your own brand name. The incremental cost is almost always far lower than the value of high-intent traffic you would otherwise lose to a competitor ad sitting above your organic listing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Legal \/ Trademark Guide Quick Answer In India, the answer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":41840,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[505],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brand-protection"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCan Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41836\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"AdSpyder\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1731\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"909\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Abhishek Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Abhishek Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Abhishek Singh\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/019f20ac9229517cfc2d66b908b656f0\"},\"headline\":\"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads? The 2026 Reality\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\"},\"wordCount\":3689,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Brand Protection\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\",\"name\":\"Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00\",\"description\":\"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg\",\"width\":1731,\"height\":909,\"caption\":\"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads?\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"blog\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brand Protection\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/category\/brand-protection\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads? The 2026 Reality\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"AdSpyder\",\"description\":\"Spy on Your Competitors\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"AdSpyder\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":300,\"caption\":\"AdSpyder\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/019f20ac9229517cfc2d66b908b656f0\",\"name\":\"Abhishek Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ecceb4f04c0c06c78df7d35567f4c454e8db1d7d2bd4ca394f3785876c606703?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ecceb4f04c0c06c78df7d35567f4c454e8db1d7d2bd4ca394f3785876c606703?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Abhishek Singh\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/author\/abhishek\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?","description":"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.","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:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41836","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?","og_description":"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.","og_url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/","og_site_name":"AdSpyder","article_published_time":"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1731,"height":909,"url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Abhishek Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Abhishek Singh","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/"},"author":{"name":"Abhishek Singh","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/019f20ac9229517cfc2d66b908b656f0"},"headline":"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads? The 2026 Reality","datePublished":"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/"},"wordCount":3689,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg","articleSection":["Brand Protection"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/","url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/","name":"Can Competitors Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads in 2026?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg","datePublished":"2026-05-30T06:10:46+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-30T07:01:48+00:00","description":"In India, the 2026 Hindware ruling made competitor brand bidding illegal. Here's what it means for your brand, and how to act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Can-Competitors-Legally-Bid-on-Your-Brand-Name-in-Google-Ads.jpg","width":1731,"height":909,"caption":"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads?"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/competitor-bid-brand-name-google-ads\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"blog","item":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brand Protection","item":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/category\/brand-protection\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Can Competitors Legally Bid on Your Brand Name in Google Ads? The 2026 Reality"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/","name":"AdSpyder","description":"Spy on Your Competitors","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#organization","name":"AdSpyder","url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-89-1.png","width":300,"height":300,"caption":"AdSpyder"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/019f20ac9229517cfc2d66b908b656f0","name":"Abhishek Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ecceb4f04c0c06c78df7d35567f4c454e8db1d7d2bd4ca394f3785876c606703?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ecceb4f04c0c06c78df7d35567f4c454e8db1d7d2bd4ca394f3785876c606703?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Abhishek Singh"},"url":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/author\/abhishek\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41836"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41836\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41844,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41836\/revisions\/41844"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41840"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/adspyder.io\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}