Court rules that mere allegations without prima facie evidence do not warrant an injunction in trademark disputes.
In a significant development in the corporate world, the Calcutta High Court has overturned an earlier injunction against Godrej Consumer Products Limited, which was restrained from using its product design in a legal battle with Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited. The division bench, consisting of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, delivered the judgment on February 27, 2026, setting aside the single bench's ad interim injunction order dated February 25, 2026.
The case revolved around allegations of trademark infringement and disparagement between the two leading companies in the market for toilet cleaning liquids. The primary contention was the design of the bottle used by both parties. Reckitt Benckiser, the plaintiff, argued that Godrej's product design infringed on its trademark, specifically the "HARPIC BOTTLE AND CAP" device. However, the court found that the plaintiff's trademark registration was vague and questionable, especially since the design rights under the Designs Act, 2000, had expired, making the design generic.
The court emphasized the principles governing the grant of injunctions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. It underscored that an injunction cannot be granted merely on allegations of infringement without establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court noted that the design of Godrej's product was distinctly different from that of Reckitt Benckiser, with only the shape of the dispenser being similar, which is a functional necessity.
Furthermore, the court criticized the delay in Reckitt Benckiser's plea for an injunction, as the allegedly disparaging advertisements by Godrej had been published since October 2025. The bench observed that Reckitt Benckiser's main concern was the disparaging advertisements, for which Godrej had already provided an undertaking not to publish further.
The judgment also highlighted the questionable attempt by Reckitt Benckiser to revive expired proprietary design rights through trademark registration. The court ruled that the ad interim injunction was not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case and set aside the single bench's order.
The court directed Godrej to file an affidavit in opposition to the interlocutory application filed by Reckitt Benckiser, with replies to be submitted promptly, and urged the single bench not to grant any adjournments to expedite the proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Ad interim injunction in trademark disputes - Grant of injunction must be based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury - Vague and questionable trademark registration cannot revive expired proprietary rights under the Designs Act, 2000.
Statutory provision(s): Trademark Act, 1999 Sections 9 and 17, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Designs Act, 2000.
