The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an ad-interim injunction that had restrained Godrej Consumer Products from using its “Spic” toilet cleaner [Godrej Consumer Products Vs Reckitt Benckister]..A Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the relief should not have been granted by the single-judge at the interim stage. "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," the Court said while allowing Godrej's appeal against the single-judge order..The dispute between Godrej and Reckitt Benckiser India, maker of Harpic toilet cleaner, stemmed from the shape of the toilet cleaner bottle. Reckitt had earlier secured an ad-interim injunction from a single-judge who restrained Godrej’s product on the basis of its registrations for the “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark..The single-judge found that Reckitt had made out a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement based on its registrations relating to the “Harpic bottle and cap”. He held that trademark protection could extend to the shape of a bottle and its structural features, and that Reckitt’s registrations were prima facie valid.The single-judge also concluded that the shapes of the Harpic and Godrej bottles were virtually identical and "strikingly similar” and that there was a likelihood of confusion and deception in the mind of the average consumer.He held that once infringement of a registered trademark is established, an injunction must normally follow.On this reasoning, the single-judge restrained Godrej from selling its toilet cleaner in the impugned bottle shape pending further proceedings.This led to the appeal before the Division Bench..The Division Bench opined that the suit was primarily about disparaging advertisements issued by Godrej rather than trademark infringement.The advertisements had been in circulation since October 2025. The Court held that the claim of urgency, which was raised by Reckitt to obtain the injunction, was weak and that Godrej should have been allowed to file its response before any restraint order was granted.Importantly, Godrej had already undertaken before the single-judge that it would stop the advertisements. The Division Bench held that this undertaking should have been sufficient interim protection.The Court also noted that the allegations of trademark infringement appeared to be an afterthought introduced later in the pleadings..The Bench expressed serious doubts about enforcing trademark rights solely over the bottle shape. It held that the registered mark must be viewed as the entire “Harpic bottle and cap” device and that the shape alone could not amount to infringement unless the colour, branding and overall display were copied.The Court further remarked that granting trademark protection after expiry of design protection was “wholly suspect” and raised concerns that trademark law was being used to indirectly revive an expired design monopoly..Finding serious doubt about whether Reckitt had made out 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 with advocates S Roychowdhury, Shounak Mitra, Aseem Chaturvedi, Nishad Nadkarni from Khaitan & Co. Advocates D Singh, V Pandey, S Mukherjee, A Bohra and S Khannum also appeared in the case. .Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited was represented bySenior Advocates Sudipto Sarkar, SN Mookherjee and R Banerji with advocates S Ginodia, Jawahar Lal, Nancy Roy, Shwetank Ginodia, M Agarwal, N Choudhury and S Firdous..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
