Bottle Battle Royale: Calcutta HC Frees Godrej's Spic from Harpic's Grip

In a swift reversal, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court—comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi—set aside an ad-interim injunction that had barred Godrej Consumer Products Limited from selling its "Spic" toilet cleaner in a contested bottle shape. The February 25, 2026, single-judge order favored Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited's "Harpic" brand, but the appellate bench ruled it unwarranted, prioritizing the suit's core claim of ad disparagement over ancillary trademark issues.

From Rim Cleaners to Courtroom Clashes

The feud centers on toilet cleaning liquids aimed at hard-to-reach spots under commode rims. Reckitt's Harpic, a market veteran, features a blue bottle with a spouted "duck head-like" dispenser and bold "HARPIC" labeling. Godrej launched Spic in October 2025 with a black bottle, distinct label, and similar—but not identical—dispenser functionality.

Reckitt held trademark registrations for the "HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP" device, but its design registration under the Designs Act, 2000 , had expired, rendering the shape generic. Godrej's ads, running since October 2025 , allegedly disparaged Harpic, prompting Reckitt's February 2026 suit. Despite awareness of Spic, Reckitt sought ex parte relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC , claiming urgency. The single judge, finding bottles "virtually identical and strikingly similar," granted the block, deeming Reckitt's trademarks prima facie valid and confusion likely.

Godrej appealed immediately, arguing the suit was primarily for disparagement, with trademark claims tacked on belatedly.

Godrej's Defense: 'Different Bottles, No Copycats'

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi led Godrej's charge, highlighting: - Spic's black bottle, unique label, and differing cap from Harpic's blue design. - Dispenser similarity is functional, for under-rim cleaning—not proprietary post-design expiry. - Reckitt knew of Spic for months yet claimed "extreme urgency," misleading the bench. - Undertaking to halt ads addressed the main plaint (paras 1-60 on disparagement); trademark allegations (paras 69-79) were afterthoughts, not a passing-off suit.

Rohatgi questioned the trademark's validity under Sections 9 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, suspecting it revived expired design rights indirectly—a non-starter for vague, interpretive marks.

Reckitt's Pushback: 'Our Bottle Shape is Sacred'

Sudipto Sarkar, for Reckitt, countered with three "HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP" device registrations, arguing shape-based trademarks protect structural features. He cited prior wins against smaller players with near-identical copies and invoked the single judge's logic: infringement demands injunction as a rule. Disparagement was intertwined with imitation, he insisted.

Bench Dissects the Divide: Function Over Form

The Division Bench pierced the single judge's reasoning. Noting the suit's disparagement focus—unresolved ads since October 2025—the court faulted the rushed ex parte hearing, mandating affidavits instead. Godrej's ad halt sufficed interim relief.

On trademarks: Harpic's mark is a holistic "device" encompassing name and cap—not isolatable shape. Godrej's bottle is "distinctly and visibly different." Post-expiry, the "duck head" spout is generic; trademarks can't resurrect lapsed designs. Prior injunctions against copycats (similar in color/shape) didn't apply here.

No prima facie infringement under Order 39; balance of convenience favored competition.

Key Observations

"The proprietorship of the spouted, duck head like head and shape of the bottle has ended. It is now generic."

"On a plain look at the two bottles... clearly indicate that the defendant-appellant’s is distinctly and visibly different from the plaintiff-respondent."

"Apart from being vague the grant of trademark to the plaintiffs after expiry of its design under the Act of 2000 is wholly suspect."

"There is serious doubt whether the plaintiff has made out any prima facie case for interlocutory injunction ."

Victory Lap for Godrej: Ads Halted, Bottles Flow

The impugned order stands set aside. Godrej must file opposition affidavits within a week; no adjournments at the single bench. Reckitt's stay plea was rebuffed.

This ruling underscores functional packaging's limits on IP monopoly, especially post-design lapse. Disparagement suits can't bootstrap weak trademark claims for quick bans, signaling caution for ex parte pleas in known disputes. Godrej's Spic shelves resume, but Harpic's damages battle looms.