Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Akash Arora – Appellant
Versus
Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 | CM APPL. 22574-75/2026
Important Points
Subject
Intellectual Property Law - Trademark and Trade Dress Litigation
Headnote
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Interim orders - An appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to grant limited, conditional relief to a party seeking to exhaust its remaining stock to mitigate hardship, provided that the applicant submits to modifications of the packaging to reduce visual similarity and adheres to rigorous transparency and accounting requirements. (Paras 16-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought permission to dispose of existing finished and unfinished stocks of products following an interim injunction against its trade dress. The appellant argued that the immediate destruction of inventory would lead to significant financial loss and environmental waste and proposed modifications to its packaging to address the claimant's concerns regarding similarity while maintaining the integrity of its primary mark.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that an absolute prohibition against selling existing stock would lead to unnecessary waste and economic harm, far outweighing any potential detriment to the claimant. By requiring the appellant to modify product features and maintain detailed, verified records of inventory and sales, the court found an equitable means of protecting the claimant's rights without imposing an unreasonable burden on the appellant.
Issues: Whether an appellate court possesses the power to grant conditional relief for the exhaustion of inventory in the context of an interim injunction against trade dress, and whether such relief is justified to prevent economic and environmental wastage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that equity is a primary consideration in interim injunctions. Allowing the consumption of existing stocks, subject to specific, court-mandated modifications to the products and total financial transparency, serves the dual purpose of protecting the claimant's interests through account-keeping while mitigating preventable economic and environmental damage.
Result: Appeal partly allowed with specific directions for inventory disposal.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Darpan Wadhwa, Sudeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Tanya Arora, Rajit Ghosh, Aastha Verma, Shitanshu Abhishek
For the Respondents: Chander M Lall, Nancy Roy, Prakriti Varshney, Prashant
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the appeal regarding stock exhaustion post-injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. apposing arguments on economic hardship versus protection of proprietary rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court-directed modifications to packaging to mitigate potential confusion. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. specified timeline and procedural conditions for final stock liquidation. (Para 14 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. equitable balancing of interests to prevent waste while maintaining accountability. (Para 16 , 17) |
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 and CM APPL. 22574/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 46336/2024 filed in CS (COMM) No. 1052/2024, whereby the Respondent’s (i.e. plaintiff’s) application for interim injunction has been allowed and the Appellant (i.e., defendant) has been restrained from using the impugned trade dresses for its product ‘Glass cleaner- , Toilet Cleaner and Disinfectant- ’.
2. In this order we are considering a limited prayer of the Appellant seeking leave to exhaust its packaged stock and unpackaged stock bearing impugned trade dresses only for its two products (i) Toilet Cleaner; and (ii) Glass Cleaner, under its trademark ‘GAINDA’.
The Appellant has clarified that it is not seeking any relief qua the trade dress of Surface Cleaner/ , which has also been injuncted.
3. The Appellant has filed an affidavit dated 10.04.2026 furnishing details of the batch numbers of the packaged stock of Toilet Cleaner and Glass Cleaner manufactured in the last three months with GST invoice numbers. The Appellant states that these products are already in the market with its distributors and/or retailers and the Appellant seeks permission to sell the stock in a time bound manner (‘Products existing in the market’).
In addition to the existing manufactured and packaged goods, the Appellant seeks leave to use its unfinished packaging stock consisting of the empty bottles, labels, bottle caps etc. which have been procured from third party vendors, but are yet to be filled up with the liquid and packaged at the factory (‘Products to the packaged and sold to the market’). The Appellant seeks a period of 90 days to complete packaging of this unfinished inventory packaging inventory of plastic bottles and and sell the same in the market.
4. The Appellant states that for the product Toilet Cleaner, 7,15,000 packaged bottles were already in the market, with the distributors/retailers, before the issuance of the injunction order. It is stated that additionally the Appellant seeks leave to package the 2,40,000 empty plastic bottles of Toilet Cleaner lying in its factory premises.
Similarly, for its product Glass Cleaner, it submits that 2,15,000 packaged bottles were already in the market, with the distributors/retailers, before the issuance of the injunction order. It is stated that additionally the Appellant seeks leave to package the 1,20,000 empty bottles of Glass Cleaner lying in its factory.
The Appellant submits that Respondent can carry out verification of the existing empty bottles of the Toilet Cleaner (2,40,000) and Glass Cleaner (1,20,000) and also documents and invoices evidencing the already manufactured goods i.e., Toilet Cleaner (7,15,000) and Glass Cleaner (2,15,000). It is further submitted that all sales would be duly accounted for and reported to the Court by way of invoices and audited statements.
5. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant sells the goods under its trademark ‘GAINDA’ and there is no dispute with respect to the distinctiveness of the said mark. He states that the mark ‘GAINDA’ is distinct from the Respondent’s marks ‘HARPIC’ and ‘COLIN’ and therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion with the consumers. He states that the dispute is only pertaining to the shape of the bottles, which would be decided by this Court in the app
