Supreme Court declines to intervene in Harpic–Godrej Spic bottle dispute, matter to proceed to trial

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere in an ongoing dispute between Reckitt Benckiser India and Godrej Consumer Products over the shape of bottles used to sell their respective toilet cleaning products, namely Reckitt's Harpic and Godrej's Spic [Reckitt Benckiser Vs Godrej].

Reckitt (Harpic) had sued Godrej (Spic) last month, accusing it of copying the bottle design and broadcasting disparaging advertisements. On February 25, a single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court issued an interim injunction order against Godrej.

However, the said interim restraining order was set aside two days later by a Division Bench of the High Court after Godrej challenged the single-judge's interim ruling.

Reckitt then approached the Supreme Court with a plea to set aside the High Court's Division Bench February 27 order and revive the interim restraining order against Godrej.

Yesterday, the top court refused to interfere. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Chandran made it clear that the controversy must be decided at trial, emphasising that all issues remain open for adjudication before the single-judge Bench.

The top court noted that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had already clarified that its observations were only prima facie and would not influence the final adjudication.

“All issues are open to be considered after completion of pleadings,” the Court observed, adding that the matter must be decided independently at trial.

The Bench also questioned the very maintainability of the appeal at this stage, indicating that parties should pursue their remedies before the High Court rather than seek intervention in an ongoing interlocutory process.

The dispute between Reckitt Benckiser and Godrej centres on the shape and configuration of their toilet cleaner bottles, marketed as “Harpic” and “Spic” respectively.

In its suit before the Calcutta High Court, Reckitt has contended that Godrej’s “Spic” bottle infringed its registered “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark. It argued that the distinctive curved-neck bottle - designed to reach under toilet rims - had acquired trademark protection and functioned as a source identifier in the minds of consumers.

A single-judge of the High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Godrej from using the bottle shape in focus, holding that trademark protection could extend to structural features of the bottle. The single judge further found that the rival products appeared strikingly similar and could confuse customers.

Godrej challenged this order before a Division Bench, contending that the bottle shape was functional and common to the industry. No monopoly could be claimed over such features, Godrej argued. It also pointed out that the dispute had arisen because of allegedly disparaging advertisements broadcast by Godrej, which it had already agreed to withdraw.

The Division Bench set aside the injunction order. It held that the urgency claimed by Reckitt while seeking the interim injunction appeared to be weak, particularly since the advertisements it complained of were aired as early as October 2025.

The Division Bench opined that Reckitt's trademark infringement plea appeared to be an afterthought. It also questioned whether trademark protection could be asserted over the shape of a bottle alone, when the colour and other features of the rival products were different. It concluded that Reckitt had not made out a strong prima facie case to get an interim injunction order.

However, the Division Bench also clarified that its comments were prima facie observations.

"The single bench may decide finally the interlocutory applications after receiving affidavits from the parties," it added.

Questioning the Division Bench order, Reckitt's counsel told the Supreme Court that the company’s registered “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark entitled it to protection over the distinctive shape of the bottle.

It was submitted that:

• Trademark protection can extend to the structural shape of a product;

• Reckitt holds valid registrations depicting the bottle from multiple angles;

• Expiry of design protection does not bar trademark rights over the same shape.

They emphasised that the Harpic bottle is uniquely identifiable in the market and that its curved neck and configuration function as a source identifier.

Reckitt also contended that the High Court's Division Bench had wrongly diluted settled principles by refusing interim protection despite a registered mark.

The top court, however, was not inclined to interfere with the Division Bench order. It observed that the questions raised can be decided by trial and disposed of the appeal.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Chander M Lall led arguments for Reckitt.

Godrej was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi