Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Injunction in Harpic Bottle Design Dispute

Summary

In a notable ruling on trademark protection and product configuration, the Calcutta High Court in Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd.[1] Set aside an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using its toilet cleaner product. The Court held that the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the shape of its bottle after expiry of its design registration and emphasized that trademark protection over a “device” must be assessed as a whole rather than dissecting individual elements.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose between Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. and Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Concerning the shape and configuration of toilet cleaner bottles. The respondent-plaintiff claimed rights over the “Harpic bottle and cap” device mark and alleged infringement and passing off by the appellant-defendant’s competing product.

The plaintiff had previously enjoyed design protection over the distinctive bottle shape. However, such protection had expired. The defendant launched its product in October 2025 using a differently coloured bottle with a similar functional spouted dispenser.

The suit was primarily filed alleging disparagement through advertisements, with claims of trademark infringement being introduced subsequently. The Single Bench granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant, which was challenged in appeal.

Issues before the Court

• Whether the plaintiff could claim Trademark protection over the bottle shape after expiry of design rights.
• Whether the defendant’s product infringed the registered “device” mark of the plaintiff.

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s design registration over the bottle had expired, rendering the shape generic and incapable of exclusive appropriation. It held that once a design enters the public domain, it cannot be indirectly monopolized through Trademark law. The Court expressed doubt over the validity of granting a Trademark that effectively revives an expired design right.

It further emphasized that the registered mark was a composite “device” mark, namely “Harpic bottle and cap,” which must be assessed as a whole. The Court held that the shape of the bottle alone could not form the basis of infringement unless the overall get-up, including colour, label, and presentation, was deceptively similar. Upon comparison, the defendant’s product was found to be visually and structurally distinct.

Additionally, the Court noted that the primary grievance in the suit pertained to alleged disparaging advertisements rather than trademark infringement. The defendant had already undertaken to cease such advertisements, thereby addressing the core concern at the interim stage. The belated inclusion of infringement claims was viewed as an afterthought.

The Court also found that the grant of injunction by the Single Bench did not satisfy the settled principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, particularly in the absence of a strong prima facie case.

Held

The Calcutta High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Bench, holding that no prima facie case of trade mark infringement was established. The Court directed that the matter be reconsidered after exchange of affidavits and confined interim protection to the defendant’s undertaking not to publish the impugned advertisements.

Conclusion

This judgment highlights the limits of trademark protection in cases involving product shapes and configurations. By refusing to extend trademark rights to an expired design, the Court has reinforced the principle that intellectual property regimes must not be used to perpetuate monopoly beyond their statutory term.

The ruling also highlights judicial caution against expanding interim relief in the absence of a clear prima facie case, particularly where the core dispute lies elsewhere. It serves as an important precedent on the interplay between design law and trademark law, especially in cases involving functional product features.

[1] TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2026