A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has set aside an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products Limited from using its toilet cleaner bottle, in a trademark and disparagement dispute with Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited.
The appeal arose from a February 25, 2026 order of a Single Bench that had restrained Godrej, the defendant in the suit, from using its product packaging on allegations of trademark infringement and disparagement. The product at the centre of the dispute is a toilet cleaning liquid marketed in a distinctive angled bottle design.
Reckitt, the plaintiff, claimed rights over the “HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP” device mark and argued that Godrej’s recently launched product “Spic,” introduced in October 2025, infringed its registered trademark and copied the distinctive duck-head style spouted dispenser associated with its Harpic toilet cleaner. Reckitt also alleged that Godrej had issued disparaging advertisements targeting its product.
The Division Bench, however, noted that Reckitt’s registered design over the bottle had expired under the Designs Act, 2000, and observed that the proprietorship over the bottle’s shape had lapsed by efflux of time. It found that while both products featured under-the-rim dispensers, the colour schemes, labels, and overall trade dress were visibly distinct with Reckitt’s bottle in blue and Godrej’s in black.
The Court further held that the primary cause of action in the plaint was disparagement through advertisements, with trademark infringement appearing as a belated and ancillary plea. Since Godrej had undertaken before the Single Bench to cease the allegedly disparaging advertisements, the Division Bench ruled that interim protection was adequately addressed.
Expressing doubt over the enforceability of the trademark claim particularly where it appeared to overlap with an expired design right, the Bench concluded that no prima facie case for ad-interim injunction had been made out under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the February 25 injunction order and directed Godrej to file its affidavit-in-opposition within a week. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and left it open to the Single Bench to decide the interlocutory applications finally after exchange of affidavits.
A request by Reckitt for a stay of the appellate order was refused.
Appearances:
For the Appellant/Petitioner (Godrej Consumer Products Limited): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate Mr. R. Bachawat, Senior Advocate Mr. R. Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate Mr. S. Roychowdhury, Advocate Mr. S. Mitra, Advocate Mr. A. Chaturvedi, Advocate Mr. N. Nadkarni, Advocate Ms. D. Singh, Advocate Ms. V. Pandey, Advocate Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. A. Bohra, Advocate Ms. S. Khannum, Advocate.
For the Respondent (Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited): Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Senior Advocate Mr. R. Banerji, Senior Advocate Mr. S. Ginodia, Advocate Mr. J. Lal, Advocate Ms. N. Roy, Advocate Mr. Shwetank Ginodia, Advocate Ms. M. Agarwal, Advocate Mr. N. Choudhury, Advocate Ms. S. Firdous, Advocate
