Harpic-Spic Bottle Dispute Between Reckitt And Godrej. (IPR Dispute)

Godrej Consumer Products Limited v. Reckitt Benckister India Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA-  TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2026 WITH IP.COM/3/2026

It is an admitted position that the plaintiff-respondent enjoyed a registered design under the Designs Act, 2000, the registration of which has since expired by efflux of time in terms of the provisions of the Act.

The proprietorship of the spouted, duck head like head and shape of the bottle has ended. It is now generic. The bottle of the plaintiff is blue in colour with a spouted cap closed, dispenser. The name of the product is displayed in bold English alphabets. The defendant entered into the market with its toilet cleaner named ‘spic’ sometime in October 2025.

The court observed that, the Trademark Registration Certificate annexed to the application that the trade mark of the plaintiff is entitled to HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP and that too as a ‘Device’. On a plain look at the two bottles, i.e. the one belonging to the plaintiff-respondent, namely HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP and the one introduced in the market by the appellant-defendant, clearly indicate that the defendant-appellant’s is distinctly and visibly different from the plaintiff-respondent.

The said mark must be seen as a whole, i.e. “the device HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP”. The shape of the bottle alone could not have been the subject matter of any trade mark infringement thereof unless the bottle of the product of the defendant copies the colour, name, writing and display of the product of the plaintiff-respondent.Apart from being vague, the grant of trademark to the plaintiffs after expiry of its design under the Act of 2000 is wholly suspect. There is serious doubt whether the appellant could have obtained the trademark in question to revive indirectly an expired proprietary right of design. Even otherwise a trade mark that requires interpretation cannot be enforced.