Godrej Consumer Products Limited launched a toilet cleaner called "Spic" in October 2025 in a black bottle with a dispenser cap meant to reach under the toilet rim. Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, which sells the well-known blue "Harpic" toilet cleaner, felt that Godrej's bottle shape (especially the spout/dispenser part) was too similar to its own and would confuse customers. Reckitt had earlier design protection for its bottle shape, but that had expired, so the shape became open for anyone to use. However, Reckitt later got trademark registration for the overall "Harpic Bottle and Cap" as a device (picture mark).
Reckitt filed a court case in February 2026 mainly complaining about Godrej's ads that compared and criticised Harpic (called disparaging ads), but also added a smaller claim about trademark infringement and product confusion due to the similar bottle shape. A single judge quickly gave a temporary order on February 25, 2026 stopping Godrej from selling its Spic product. Godrej appealed this order to a higher bench (Division Bench) of the Calcutta High Court.
The Division Bench looked at everything and felt the single judge's quick ban was not correct. The main fight in the case was about the insulting ads, which Godrej had already promised to stop. The bottle shape complaint came later and seemed added as an afterthought. The two bottles look clearly different overall — Harpic is blue with its name in big letters, while Spic is black with a different label and cap. The only common thing is the basic spout shape needed for the job (to clean under the rim), which is now common/generic after the old design expired. The court also doubted whether Reckitt could use trademark law to bring back protection for a shape whose design right had ended. The judges said there was no strong first-case proof of trademark copying or real confusion, so no temporary ban was needed. They cancelled the February 25 order, told Godrej to file its full reply soon, and asked the lower court to decide the next steps properly after hearing both sides fully. Godrej remains bound by its promise not to run those comparison ads anymore.
Case Details :Godrej Consumer Vs Reckitt Benckiser:27.02.2026, TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2026 in IP.COM/3/2026:CALHC, Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Disclaimer:It is not substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective human errors.
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
