Calcutta High Court Finds 'Spic' Bottle 'Virtually Identical' To Harpic, Restrains Godrej

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, on February 25, 2026, explained that the cancellation or expiry of a design monopoly does not prevent a party from claiming trademark protection over a registered shape.

"Nevertheless, the cancellation of the design monopoly per se does not necessarily mean that there can be no trade mark monopoly on the registered mark or recognition of a mark or its distinctindicia in a passing off action.", the court observed relying on apex court ruling in Super Smelters Limited & Ors vs. Srmb Srijan Private Limited 2009

Reckitt Benckiser moved the Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Godrej. While Reckitt's design registration for the Harpic bottle, dating back to 2002, had expired, the company argued that it continues to enjoy protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Counsel for Reckitt submitted that Godrej, being a new entrant in the category, was fully aware of the Harpic product and had deliberately and slavishly copied their trade dress, bottle shape as well as the cap. At this ad-interim stage, the company limited its case strictly to infringement under the Act.

Opposing the injunction, Godrej argued that any statutory protection for the Harpic bottle design had lapsed. They contended that there is no valid trademark registration specifically for the shape of the bottle and that the existing registration only covers the device.

It was further submitted by Godrej that the specific shape in question is commonly and widely used in the industry and has now become generic. Invoking Section 17 of the Act, Godrej argued that a party can only claim exclusivity over a mark as a whole, not over individual parts like the bottle's cap or contour.

Justice Kapur rejected the notion that the expiry of a design registration automatically places a shape in the public domain if it is also registered as a trademark. The Court observed that while the object of the Designs Act, 2000 is to limit monopolies, “the cancellation of the design monopoly per se does not necessarily mean that there can be no trade mark monopoly on the registered mark”.

The Court placed weight on Reckitt's registration certificate (TM No. 3491010), which included a six-sided view of the product. Justice Kapur noted that under a joint reading of Sections 2(1)(m) and 2(z)(b), registration is permissible for the shape of a bottle or its cap. “Once the petitioner has shown a valid registration certificate, it is automatically entitled to protection under the Act,” the Judge noted, citing Section 28.

Upon comparing the two products, the Court found the shapes to be “virtually identical and strikingly similar”. The Court concluded that there is a high “likelihood of confusion and deception in the mind of the average consumer.”

Following the pronouncement, Godrej's counsel prayed for a stay on the operation of the order, which the Court summarily considered and rejected.

The matter is scheduled to be heard as a "Specially Fixed Matter" on March 16, 2026.

For Reckitt Benckiser: Senior Advocates Sudipto Sarkar, S. N. Nookherjeea and Ratnanko Banerji; Advocates Sanjay Ginodia, Jawahar Lal, Nancy Roy, Shwetank Ginodia, Mini Agarwal, Naman Choudhury and Sirin Firdous

For Godrej: Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat; Advocates Soumya Roychowdhury, Shounak Mitra, Vaibhavi Pandey, Akshita Bohra, Samina Khanum and Ojasvi Gupta, A