Battle Of Toilet Cleaners: Calcutta High Court Finds Spic Bottle ‘Virtually Identical’ To Harpic, Stops Godrej From Selling Similar Bottles

The Calcutta High Court has ordered Godrej Consumer Products Ltd to stop selling its “Godrej Spic” toilet cleaner in a bottle shape that the court found to be “virtually identical” to the registered shape of Reckitt Benckiser’s Harpic bottle.

The order was given on February 25, 2026, and is an ad-interim injunction, meaning it stays in place until a full hearing later.

Design Expiry Doesn’t End Trademark Rights

Reports say that Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur heard the case and made it clear that just because a design registration has expired, it doesn’t mean that a company loses all rights to its bottle shape if that shape is also a registered trademark. 

The court quoted an earlier Supreme Court judgment saying, “Nevertheless, the cancellation of the design monopoly per se does not necessarily mean that there can be no trademark monopoly on the registered mark or recognition of a mark or its distinct indicia.”

Reckitt’s Claim: “Deliberately Copied”

According to reports, Reckitt Benckiser had filed the case. The company manufactures Harpic, a well-known toilet cleaner, and argued that Godrej’s Spic bottle looked so much like Harpic’s that customers could easily get confused. Reckitt’s lawyers said Godrej was a new player in this product category and “was fully aware of the Harpic product and had deliberately and slavishly copied their trade dress, bottle shape as well as the cap.” At this stage, Reckitt focused on claiming trademark infringement.

Godrej opposed the injunction. The company said that the design registration for Harpic’s bottle had lapsed long ago. They also said there was no valid trademark registration specifically for the bottle shape, just for the device or mark on it.

As per reports, Godrej’s lawyers argued that this common bottle shape is widely used across the industry and had become generic. They also cited Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, saying a company can only claim exclusivity over the entire registered mark, not individual parts like the shape of a bottle or its cap.

Godrej’s Defence Rejected

Justice Kapur rejected Godrej’s argument that expiry of design protection meant the bottle shape was free for everyone to use. The judge pointed to Reckitt’s trademark registration (TM No. 3491010), which included multiple views of the bottle and showed that shape registration was valid under Sections 2(1)(m) and 2(z)(b) of the Trademarks Act. 

The court noted, “Once the petitioner has shown a valid registration certificate, it is automatically entitled to protection under the Act.”

After comparing the two products, the court said the bottle shapes were “virtually identical and strikingly similar” and that this would likely cause confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer.

Godrej asked for the order to be stayed, but the court rejected that plea. The next hearing in this case will be on March 16, 2026 as a “Specially Fixed Matter.”

For Reckitt Benckiser, the legal team included Senior Advocates Sudipto Sarkar, S. N. Nookherjeea, and Ratnanko Banerji along with other lawyers. For Godrej, Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat and a team of advocates appeared.

Also Read: ‘Truly Splendid!’ PM Narendra Modi Praises Benjamin Netanyahu for Wearing Traditional Indian Attire, Backs India-Israel FTA Push