Showing posts with label Reckitt Benckiser Vs Godrej Consumer Products Limited. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reckitt Benckiser Vs Godrej Consumer Products Limited. Show all posts

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Reckitt Benckiser Vs Godrej Consumer Products Limited

**Summary**  
Reckitt Benckiser, owner of the famous HARPIC toilet cleaner, sued Godrej Consumer Products for trademark infringement after Godrej launched its “Spic” toilet cleaner in a bottle that looks almost identical in shape and cap to the HARPIC bottle. Reckitt holds trademark registrations covering the distinctive bottle shape. At the urgent hearing before the Calcutta High Court, Reckitt pressed only the infringement claim. The court compared the two bottles side by side and found them strikingly similar, creating a clear risk of confusion among buyers. It held that trademark protection for the bottle shape remains valid even after the earlier design registration expired. Reckitt made out a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience favoured protection of the registered mark, and deliberate copying left no room for Godrej. The court granted an ad-interim injunction stopping Godrej from selling “Spic” in the similar bottle shape till 23 March 2026 and rejected Godrej’s request to stay the order.

**Points of Law Settled in the Case**  
• Expiry of design registration for a product shape does not cancel trademark protection if the same shape is registered under the Trade Marks Act. (Paras 9 & 11)  
• Trademark registration for the shape of a bottle or cap is permissible and provides prima facie validity and protection against infringement. (Paras 8, 10 & 11, relying on Section 2(1)(m) read with 2(z)(b) of the Trade Marks Act)  
• When two product shapes are virtually identical and likely to confuse the average consumer, an ad-interim injunction must follow as a normal consequence regardless of balance of convenience arguments. (Paras 13 & 14, relying on Gorbadschow Wodka KG vs. John Distilleries 2011(4) M.H.L.J. 842)  
• Deliberate and slavish copying of a registered trademark shape disentitles the defendant from claiming balance of convenience or irreparable injury in its favour. (Para 14, relying on Allergan Inc. vs. Milment Oftho Industries AIR 1998 Cal 261)  

**Case Title:** RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED  
**Order Date:** 25 February 2026  
**Case Number:** IP-COM/3/2026 with IA NO. GA-COM/1/2026  
**Neutral Citation:** Not assigned  
**Name of Court:** High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division), Original Side  
**Name of Judge:** Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

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

Blog Archive

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog