In a courtroom drama shaped—quite literally—by plastic curves, the Calcutta High Court has lifted an ad-interim injunction that had briefly halted Godrej Consumer Products from selling its “Spic” toilet cleaner in a contested bottle design.
The dispute traces back to a familiar silhouette: the angled neck and contoured frame long associated with “Harpic,” manufactured by Reckitt Benckiser India. Reckitt had persuaded a single-judge bench to block Godrej’s product at the threshold stage, arguing that its registered “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark extended protection not just to branding—but to the very architecture of the bottle itself.
The single-judge had found the two bottles “strikingly similar,” concluding that an average buyer might well be misled. With a registered trademark seemingly in play, the logic followed a familiar path: infringement established, injunction granted.
But the appellate bench saw the matter differently.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismantled the urgency that had underpinned the restraint order. The judges noted that the advertisements sparking the controversy had been circulating since October 2025. If immediacy was the basis for emergency relief, it had worn thin.
More crucially, Godrej had already assured the court it would withdraw the disputed advertisements. That undertaking, the Bench said, should have sufficed at the interim stage.
The court also questioned the trajectory of the lawsuit itself. What began as a grievance over allegedly disparaging advertisements appeared, in the Bench’s reading, to have gradually morphed into a trademark infringement battle—almost as an add-on. That shift raised eyebrows.
Then came the sharper legal point: can a bottle’s shape, in isolation, carry trademark protection?
The Division Bench expressed serious reservations. It observed that the registered mark covered the composite “Harpic bottle and cap” device—not a standalone geometric outline. For infringement to stick, the copying would need to extend beyond contours to colour scheme, branding, and overall presentation. Shape alone, stripped of its commercial dress, was not enough.
The court also hinted at a broader policy concern. Granting trademark protection over a product’s shape after the expiry of design rights could amount to a backdoor extension of monopoly—something trademark law is not meant to facilitate.
With those doubts firmly recorded, the Bench set aside the February 25 injunction and sent the matter back for a full hearing before the single-judge. Both sides have been directed to complete their pleadings.
For now, the battle over bathroom chemistry returns to the shelves—its outcome still uncertain, but its contours more clearly defined.
