Calcutta High Court grants interim relief to Reckitt in Harpic bottle dispute

New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products from selling its ‘Godrej Spic’ toilet cleaner in a bottle design alleged to infringe the registered trademark shape of Reckitt Benckiser’s ‘Harpic’ product, as per the news reports.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in an order dated February 25, 2026, observed that the expiry or cancellation of a design registration does not automatically extinguish trademark rights in a registered shape. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Super Smelters vs. Srmb Srijan (2009), the Court noted that the end of a design monopoly does not preclude a claim of trademark protection or recognition in a passing off action.

Reckitt approached the Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Although its design registration for the Harpic bottle, first obtained in 2002, has expired, the company contended that protection continues under the Trademarks Act, 1999. At the ad-interim stage, Reckitt confined its submissions to infringement under the Act.

Counsel for Reckitt argued that Godrej, described as a relatively new entrant in the category, was aware of the Harpic product and had copied the trade dress, bottle shape and cap.

Godrej opposed the injunction, submitting that any statutory protection for the Harpic bottle design had lapsed. It argued that there was no standalone trademark registration specifically covering the bottle shape and that the existing registration applied only to the device mark.

The company further contended that the bottle shape in question is common within the industry and has become generic. Citing Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, Godrej submitted that exclusivity attaches to the mark as a whole and not to individual elements such as the contour or cap.

Justice Kapur rejected the contention that the expiry of a design registration automatically places a shape in the public domain where it is also protected as a trademark. The Court observed that while the Designs Act, 2000 seeks to prevent perpetual monopolies, the termination of design rights does not necessarily negate trademark protection for a registered mark.

The Court relied on Reckitt’s trademark registration certificate (TM No. 3491010), which includes a six-sided depiction of the product. On a combined reading of Sections 2(1)(m) and 2(z)(b) of the Act, the Court held that registration can extend to the shape of a bottle or its cap. It further observed that once a valid registration certificate is produced, the registrant is entitled to statutory protection under Section 28.

Upon comparing the competing products, the Court found the bottle shapes to be substantially similar and observed that there was a significant likelihood of confusion or deception among average consumers.

Following the order, counsel for Godrej sought a stay on its operation, which the Court declined. The matter has been listed as a specially fixed case for hearing on March 16, 2026.