The Calcutta High Court set aside an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej Consumer Products from marketing its “Spic” toilet cleaner, with a Division Bench holding that the single judge erred in granting interim relief.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court set aside an ad-interim injunction that had barred Godrej Consumer Products from using its “Spic” toilet cleaner.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi determined that the single-judge should not have granted the interim relief.
The court said while allowing Godrej’s appeal,
“Having regard to the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that grant of ad interim order of injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case was and is not warranted. The impugned order of injunction dated February 25, 2026 is set aside,”
ALSO READ: Trademark Battle: Supreme Court Restores Contempt Proceedings Against Hero Ecotech
Actual Dispute and Single Judge Decision:
The dispute between Godrej and Reckitt Benckiser India, the maker of Harpic, concerned the shape of the toilet-cleaner bottle. Reckitt had earlier obtained an ad-interim injunction from a single judge based on its registrations for the “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark.
The single judge had concluded that Reckitt had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement founded on those registrations. He found that trademark protection could extend to bottle shape and structural features and treated Reckitt’s registrations as prima facie valid.
The single judge also held that the shapes of the Harpic and Godrej bottles were virtually identical and “strikingly similar,” creating a likelihood of confusion and deception among average consumers. On that basis, he ruled that an injunction ordinarily follows once infringement of a registered trademark is shown, and he restrained Godrej from selling its toilet cleaner in the challenged bottle shape pending further proceedings.
Godrej then appealed to the Division Bench.
ALSO READ: Trademark Win for Delhivery: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief in Trademark & Copyright Case
Observations of Division Bench:
The Division Bench observed that the suit primarily concerned allegedly disparaging advertisements by Godrej rather than a pure trademark infringement claim. The advertisements had been circulating since October 2025. The court found Reckitt’s argument of urgency to secure an injunction weak and said Godrej should have been permitted to file its response before any restraint was imposed.
Notably, Godrej had already assured the single judge that it would cease the advertisements, and the Division Bench said that undertaking should have provided adequate interim protection.
The Bench also remarked that allegations of trademark infringement appeared to have been added later in the pleadings. It expressed significant reservations about granting trademark protection solely for bottle shape, stating that the registered mark must be considered as the whole “Harpic bottle and cap” device and that the shape alone would not amount to infringement unless the colour, branding and overall presentation were also copied.
The court further warned that granting trademark rights after design protection has expired was “wholly suspect,” expressing concern that trademark law might be used to indirectly revive an expired design monopoly.
Finding serious doubt as to whether Reckitt had established a prima facie case for interim relief, the Division Bench set aside the injunction and directed the parties to complete pleadings before the single judge for a full hearing.
Godrej was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, R. Bachawat and R. Bhattacharya, alongside advocates S. Roychowdhury, S. Mitra, A. Chaturvedi, N. Nadkarni, D. Singh, V. Pandey, S. Mukherjee, A. Bohra and S. Khannum. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited was represented by Senior Advocates Sudipto Sarkar, S.N. Mookherjee and R. Banerji, with advocates S. Ginodia, Jawahar Lal, Nancy Roy, Shwetank Ginodia, M. Agarwal, N. Choudhury and S. Firdous.
Case Title: Godrej Consumer Products Vs Reckitt Benckister
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE