DOES SPIC TOILET CLEANER BOTTLE
RESEMBLES HARPIC TOILET CLEANER
BOTTLE- CALCUTTA HIGH COURT’S
DIVISION BENCH SET ASIDE THE
INTERIM INJUNCTION TO USE SPIC
CLEANER BOTTLE
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD.
THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
On February 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench set aside
an ad-interim injunction that had restrained Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. from
selling its “Spic” toilet cleaner.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Reckitt
Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., the maker of Harpic, filed a suit alleging that
Godrej’s Spic toilet cleaner infringed its trademark rights by using a similar
bottle shape.
RECKITT
ALLEGED THAT THE GODREJ’S ADVERTISEMENT AMOUNTED TO:
·
Disparagement
of its product
·
Misleading
comparative advertising
·
Trademark
infringement / dilution
·
Unfair
trade practice
INITIAL INJUNCTION:
A single judge had granted an ad-interim
injunction on February 25, 2026, preventing Godrej from selling Spic in the
contested packaging.
DIVISION BENCH RULING:
The Bench lifted the restraint, holding that the injunction was
improperly granted at the interim stage. They questioned the urgency and
rejected the idea that exclusive trademark rights could be claimed over the
bottle shape alone, especially since Reckitt’s design rights had expired.
EARLIER CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT
· Pepsi Co. Inc. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd.
(comparative advertising principles)
· Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs Hindustan Unilever
Ltd. (toothpaste comparative ads)
OUTCOME:
Godrej is now free to market and sell its Spic toilet cleaner in the
disputed packaging.
This ruling highlights the tension between design rights and trademark
protection in product packaging disputes.
YOUR COMPLIANCE PARTNER – R V SECKAR , FCS, LLB, 79047 19295
