Delhi HC Allows 'GAINDA' Maker To Clear Inventory Despite Injunction In Harpic, Colin Trade Dress Dispute

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the maker of 'GAINDA' cleaners to exhaust its existing stock despite an injunction over bottle designs similar to Reckitt's Harpic and Colin, holding that the relief was necessary to balance the equities and avoid financial loss and environmental waste.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “.We are not persuaded that any undue loss will be caused to the Respondent if Appellant is permitted to exhaust its finished and unfinished stock in a time bound manner. Such a direction would be merited even if we were to reject the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment"

The dispute arises from a March 28, 2026 order of a Single Judge restraining Grand Chemical Works from manufacturing and selling toilet cleaners, glass cleaners, and disinfectants using trade dress alleged to be deceptively similar to the products of Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited, including Harpic and Colin.

Before the Division Bench, Grand Chemical Works, makers of Gainda products sought limited permission to clear its inventory of toilet cleaner and glass cleaner products sold under the 'GAINDA' mark. It disclosed that substantial quantities of finished goods were already in the market with distributors and retailers, and also sought leave to utilise its existing stock of empty bottles, caps and labels lying at its factory. No relief was sought in respect of the surface cleaner.

It was argued that the 'GAINDA' mark is distinct from 'HARPIC' and 'COLIN', and that the dispute pertains only to the shape of the bottles, which remains to be adjudicated in appeal.

Grand Chemicals pointed out that it had been selling the products since 2019, while the injunction was granted on March 28, 2026, and contended that it ought to have been granted reasonable time to clear its stock.

It further submitted that denial of such relief would render the inventory dead waste, causing financial hardship and environmental damage.

Opposing the plea, Reckitt And Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. argued that the Appellant's market share is only 0.8% compared to its 78%, and permitting sale of the inventory would keep the impugned products in circulation for years given the slow pace of sales. It also contended that the liquid contents and plastic bottles are not perishable and could be repackaged in a non-infringing trade dress, and therefore no equity arose in favour of the Appellant.

Accepting the plea, the bench held that permitting exhaustion of inventory was necessary to balance the equities, particularly since the Appellant had been in the market for several years and was bound to have inventory when the injunction was granted. It noted that the impact of the injunction could result in environmental waste and financial losses outweighing any potential harm to the Respondent.

To minimize consumer confusion, the court directed modifications to the packaging. For toilet cleaners, thecleaning company was required to use yellow caps along with revised yellow labels. For glass cleaners, the blue spray nozzle was to be replaced with a white nozzle. The Court observed,

“The Appellant sells its goods under a distinct trademark GAINDA and with the distinct yellow label as well as yellow cap; we are satisfied that the alleged similarity between the bottles will stand substantially reduced.”

The court fixed a strict timeline: packaging of unfinished stock must be completed by May 31, 2026; sale by Gainda products makers and its distributors to retailers must end by July 31, 2026; and retailers may sell remaining stock only until December 31, 2026, after which any unsold goods must be recalled.

It also permitted representatives of Reckitt to verify Grand Chemical's stock and invoices by April 24, 2026, and directed Gainda product makers to file an undertaking within one week accepting the conditions imposed.

For Appellant: Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa with Sudeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Tanya Arora, Rajit Ghosh, Aastha Verma, Shitanshu Abhishek

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, with Advocate Nancy Roy, Prakriti Varshney and Prashant