Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere In Harpic-Spic Bottle Dispute Between Reckitt And Godrej
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere in the Harpic toilet cleaner bottle disparagement and trademark dispute between Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd and Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, noting that the Calcutta High Court had clarified that its observations while setting aside an injunction were only prima facie and that the matter would be decided finally after completion of pleadings.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran disposed of the special leave petitions after recording that the Division Bench of the High Court had left all issues open for consideration by the single judge while deciding the interlocutory applications after affidavits were filed. The court said:
“We find from the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta that, as the learned Judge was seized of the matters, the Division Bench made it clear that its observations were prima facie in nature and that the interlocutory applications pending before the learned Judge could be decided after affidavits were received from the parties."
The dispute concerns competing toilet cleaner products, with Reckitt claiming rights over the “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark and alleging that Godrej's product, launched in October 2025, infringed its trademark and disparaged its product through advertisements. The suit was filed in February 2026 seeking injunctions on both grounds.
A single judge of the High Court had, by an ad-interim order dated February 25, 2026, restrained Godrej from using its product. However, the Division Bench on February 27, 2026 set aside the injunction, observing that the principal grievance in the suit was disparagement and that Godrej had undertaken to stop the impugned advertisements.
The Division Bench also noted that the two products differed in overall appearance and expressed doubt about the enforceability of trademark rights over the bottle shape after expiry of design protection. It directed the parties to complete pleadings and left the interlocutory applications to be decided finally by the single judge after affidavits were filed, clarifying that its observations were only prima facie.
Referring to this clarification, the Supreme Court observed:
"In the light of this statement, we affirm that all issues are left open to be considered by the learned Judge after completion of the pleadings and such consideration shall be undertaken, uninfluenced by any observation made earlier or by the dismissal of these special leave petitions."
Accordingly, the special leave petitions were dismissed
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Chander Lal, with Advocates Sanjaya Yadav, Pavani Verma, Sayyam Maheshwari, R Jawaharlal, Nancy Roy, Meghna Kumar, Sumedha Ray Sarkar, Ananya Chugh, Prakriti Varshney, Anumita Verma, Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR
For Respondent: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, with Advocates Aseem Chaturvedi, Akash Bajaj, Nishad Nadkarni, Shaunak Mitra, Milind Jain, Vaibhavi Pandey, Khaitan & Co., AOR