factual and procedural background
Mr Akash Arora, who runs Grand Chemical Works and sells household cleaning products under the brand GAINDA, found himself in a legal fight with Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited, the makers of well-known brands like Harpic and Colin. The bigger company had obtained an interim injunction in March 2026 stopping Arora from using certain bottle shapes and labels for his glass cleaner and toilet cleaner, claiming they looked too similar to theirs. Arora appealed to the Delhi High Court, explaining that he had been selling these products since 2019 and was left with a large amount of already-made stock sitting with distributors as well as empty bottles and packaging materials ready at his factory.
dispute in question
The main disagreement was whether Arora should be allowed to sell off his existing finished stock and finish packaging the empty bottles he had already paid for, or whether the entire inventory had to be destroyed because of the injunction. Arora argued that destroying the stock would cause him heavy financial loss and create unnecessary waste, while Reckitt insisted that letting the products stay in the market would weaken their rights.
reasoning and decision of court
The judges accepted that Arora had been in the market for years and that suddenly stopping all sales would hurt him far more than it would help Reckitt, especially since the products are not perishable and Arora promised to keep proper accounts of every sale. To strike a fair balance, the court permitted him to use the empty bottles but only after making simple changes to reduce any similarity, such as using yellow caps and labels for the toilet cleaner and a white spray nozzle for the glass cleaner. The court laid down clear deadlines: packaging must be completed by the end of May 2026, distributors could sell till the end of July 2026, and retailers could clear remaining stock till the end of December 2026, after which everything unsold had to be recalled. Reckitt was also allowed to verify the stock numbers at Arora’s premises. The order was passed purely to balance the equities during the appeal and without deciding the final merits of the case.
one important case law settled in this case
The court focused on practical equity and the need to avoid economic hardship and environmental waste when granting time-bound relief for exhausting existing inventory in trade-dress disputes.
Akash Arora Vs Reckitt and Colman:21.04.2026:FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026:2026:DHC:3282:Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
