Delhi High Court
Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene … vs Mr. Akash Arora Trading As M/S Grand … on 28 March, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2026
+ CS(COMM) 1052/2024 & 5358/2025
RECKITT AND COLMAN OVERSEAS HYGIENCE HOME
LIMITED & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
versus
MR. AKASH ARORA TRADING AS M/S GRAND CHEMICAL
WORKS. ....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Prakriti Varshney and
Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates.
For the Defendant : Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan Swarup,
Ms. Tanya Arora, Mr. Rajit Ghosh and Ms.
Aastha Verma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 46336/2024 (U/O XXXIX R-1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
1. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, restraining the infringement of Trade Marks, passing off,
infringement of Design and infringement of Copyright.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 1 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
2. The present dispute concerns the infringement of the Trade Marks,
Trade Dress and Bottle Designs of the toilet cleaner sold by the Plaintiffs
under the Mark ‘HARPIC’, glass and house cleaner under the Mark ‘COLIN’
and disinfectants under the Mark ‘LIZOL’ (“Plaintiffs’ Products”). The
Plaintiffs use distinctive Trade Dresses for sale of the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Marks, ‘HARPIC’ ‘ ‘, ‘COLIN’ ‘ ‘
‘LIZOL’ ‘ ‘ (“Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses”).
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
submissions:
3.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is an internationally renowned transnational corporation
based out of the United Kingdom. Plaintiff No. 1 is a subsidiary of
Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc which has operations in almost all
countries across the world, including India for many decades. PlaintiffSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 2 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
No. 2 is an existing company incorporated under the laws of India and
is engaged in the manufacture, packaging, sale and distribution of
various health and hygiene products. Plaintiff No. 2 was incorporated
on 05.07.1951. Pursuant to a worldwide merger between Reckitt
Colman Plc and Benckiser, a Dutch Company in 1999, the name of
Plaintiff No. 2 was changed from Reckitt & Colman India Limited to
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited on 18.12.2000.
3.2. Plaintiff No. 3 is a limited liability company incorporated under the
laws of United States of America and is a part of the Plaintiffs’ group
of companies with operations in almost all countries across the world,
including in India for many decades. Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc. is
an internationally renowned transnational corporation based out of the
UK and through its subsidiaries and affiliate companies, operates in
several countries around the world and has operations in many
countries across the world, including in India, for decades. The business
of the Plaintiffs comprises various consumer products including
pharmaceuticals, surface care products, toilet care products,
insecticides, and food.
3.3. The Plaintiffs have been using the Mark ‘HARPIC’ in India since as
early as 1984 and launched toilet cleaners under the Trade Mark
‘HARPIC’ in India in the year 2001. The Mark, ‘HARPIC’ is a
household name in the category of toilet cleaners and is the most widely
used toilet cleaner brand in the country. The Plaintiffs have obtained
registrations for the Mark ‘HARPIC’, the details of which are as
follows:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 3 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Trade Mark Class Regn. No. Date of
Regn.
HARPIC 3 347055 15.03.1979
HARPIC 3 370317 30.12.1980
3 2030556 29.09.2010
HARPIC POWER PLUS 5 1473986 28.07.2006
3 723898 18.06.1996
HARPIC POWER PLUS 3 1473987 28.07.2006
3 3103622 23.11.2015
3 3491010 22.02.2017
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 4 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
5 3491007 22.02.2017
3 3491009 22.02.2017
5 3491006 22.02.2017
5 3491008 22.02.2017
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 5 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3 3103620 23/11/2015
3 3103621 23/11/2015
Trade Mark Class Regn. No. Date of
Regn.
3 2485315 26.02.2013
3 5162927 06.10.2021
3 5145239 23.09.2021
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 6 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3 5237623 07.12.2021
99 5162928 06.10.2021
3.4. The Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’ are identified not
only by the Mark ‘HARPIC’ but the Trade Dress for the aforesaid
products also act as a source identifier of the ‘HARPIC’ branded toilet
cleaners. A representation of the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark,
‘HARPIC’ is as under:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 7 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3.5. The shape of the bottle and bottle cap, features and indentations on the
bottle shape, curved pattern on the bottle shape, the distinctive style of
writing ‘HARPIC’, colour scheme used in the packaging and the
features and devices on the labels collectively form the Trade Dress for
the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’. Over the years the
shape of the Harpic bottle has remained consistent, although minor
modifications have been incorporated whilst retaining the original
distinctive shape. Consumers associate the shape of the Harpic bottle
exclusively with the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’.
3.6. The Plaintiffs have invested an enormous amount of money towards
protection, promotion and advertisement of the products under the
Mark, ‘HARPIC’. It is common knowledge that the advertisements and
promotion of the Trade Dress bearing the Mark, ‘HARPIC’ has been
undertaken via all possible media including radio, television,
electronic, print as well as over the internet by the Plaintiffs. Owing to
such expansive advertisement and promotional activities undertaken by
the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’, have
acquired immense reputation and goodwill worldwide which is evident
by the enormous revenue earned by the Plaintiffs by dealing with toilet
cleaners under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’, which is as under:
Year Net Revenue (Rs. Cr.) for
HARPIC Toilet Cleaner
2023 1279.4
2022 1149.5
2021 992.7
2020 951.5
2019 925.5
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 8 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3.7. The Mark, ‘HARPIC’, and the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’ are universally recognized and relied upon
as identifying the Plaintiffs as the sole source of the goods and as
distinguishing the Plaintiffs’ Products from the products of others. As a
result, the Mark, ‘HARPIC’ and the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’
Products under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’ have acquired substantial
goodwill and are extremely valuable commercial assets in the hands of
the Plaintiffs.
3.8. The Plaintiffs had further obtained registration of the Design for the
bottle used for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’ under
Design Registration No. 184080 on 29.11.2000 and the Plaintiffs
further launched a modified variant of the same bottle shape and
obtained a Design registration for the same under Design Registration
No. 191291 dated 15.08.2002 (“Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations”).
While the Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations have expired, owing to long
and extensive use, the Plaintiffs have residual goodwill in the bottle
shapes used for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’.
3.9. The Plaintiffs are further dealing with glass and household cleaning
products under the Mark, ‘COLIN’ since the year 1998. The Plaintiffs
have obtained Trade Mark registrations for the Mark, ‘COLIN’, the
details of which are as under:
Trade Mark Registration Date of Registration Class
Number
COLIN 414910 22/12/1983 3Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 9 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
2442863 14/12/2012 33.10. The shape of the bottles and bottle cap, features and indentations on the
bottle neck, the distinctive style of writing ‘COLIN’, colour scheme
used in the packaging labels and the features and devices on the labels
collectively form the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the
Mark, ‘COLIN’. The Trade Dress used for Plaintiffs’ Products under
the Mark, ‘COLIN’ and the shape of the bottles of the aforesaid
products also constitute the source identifier of the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark, ‘COLIN’. A representation of the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark, ‘COLIN’ is as under:
3.11. The Plaintiffs have invested an enormous amount of money towards
protection, promotion and advertisement of the products under the
Mark, ‘COLIN’ and the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under
the Mark, ‘COLIN’. It is common knowledge that the advertisements
and promotion of the Plaintiffs’ Products bearing the Mark, ‘COLIN’
has been undertaken via all possible media including radio, television,
electronic, print as well as over the internet by the Plaintiffs. Owing toSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 10 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
such expansive advertisement and promotional activities undertaken
by the Plaintiffs, the products under the Mark, ‘COLIN’, have
acquired immense reputation and goodwill worldwide which is
evident by the enormous revenue earned by the Plaintiffs by dealing
with glass and home cleaners under the Mark, ‘COLIN’, which is as
under:
Year Net Revenue (Rs. Cr.)
2023 225
2022 195.5
2021 194.8
2020 148.3
2019 156.9
3.12. The Plaintiffs are further dealing with disinfectants under the Mark,
‘LIZOL’ in India since 1996. The Plaintiffs have obtained Trade Mark
registrations for the Mark, ‘LIZOL’, the details of which are as under:
Trade Mark Registration Date of Class
Number registration
LIZOL 754107 30.01.1997 3
837708 21.01.1999 3
4056357 14.01.2019 3
4621562 24.08.2020 3
LIZOL 4621563 24.08.2020 3
LIZOL 754108 30.01.1997 5
LIZOL 4621557 24.08.2020 5
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 11 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
837709 21.01.1999 5
4056358 14.01.2019 5
4621555 24.08.2020 5
4621559 24.08.2020 21
4621560 24.08.2020 3
3.13. The shape of the bottles and bottle cap, features and indentations on
the bottle neck, the distinctive style of writing ‘LIZOL’, colour scheme
used in the packaging labels and the features and devices on the labels
collectively form the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the
Mark, ‘LIZOL’. The Trade Dress used for the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’ also constitute as the source identifier of the
Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’. A representation of the
Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’ is as under:
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 12 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 13 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3.14. The Plaintiffs have invested an enormous amount of money towards
protection, promotion and advertisement of the products under the Mark,
‘LIZOL’. It is common knowledge that the advertisements and
promotion of the Plaintiffs’ Products bearing the Mark, ‘LIZOL’ has been
undertaken via all possible media including radio, television, electronic,
print as well as over the internet by the Plaintiffs. Owing to such
expansive advertisement and promotional activities undertaken by the
Plaintiffs, the products under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’, have acquired
immense reputation and goodwill worldwide which is evident by the
enormous revenue earned by the Plaintiffs by dealing with toilet cleaners
under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’, which is as under:
Year Net Revenue (Rs. Cr.)
2023 761.3
2022 708.1
2021 664.1
2020 714.8
2019 608.7
3.15. The Defendant, Mr. Akash Arora, is the proprietor of Grand Chemical
Works having its registered address at Grand House, C-212/2,Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 14 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110064, India, and is
engaged in manufacturing, packaging / labelling, wholesaling,
retailing, marketing, supplying, distributing, exporting / importing,
using and / or dealing with toilet cleaners ‘‘, glass cleaners, ‘ ‘
and disinfectants, ‘ ‘ under the Mark, ‘GAINDA’
(“Defendant’s Products”).
3.16. The Defendant’s toilet cleaner product is being sold in Trade Dress
which is identical and / or deceptively similar to the Trade Dress for
the Plaintiffs’ Product under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’, the Defendant’s
glass cleaner product is being sold in a Trade Dress which is identical
and / or deceptively similar to the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’
Products under the Mark, ‘COLIN’ and the Defendant’s surface
cleaner product is being sold in a Trade Dress which is identical and /
or deceptively similar to the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark, ‘LIZOL’ (“Impugned Trade Dresses”). ASignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 15 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
comparative table of the Plaintiffs’ Products and the Defendant’s
Products is as under:
Plaintiffs’ products under the Mark Defendant’s Toilet Cleaner
HARPICSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 16 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 17 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Plaintiffs’ products under the Defendant’s Glass Cleaner
Mark COLINSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 18 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Plaintiffs’ products under the Mark Defendant’s disinfectant product
LIZOLSignature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 19 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
3.17. The Plaintiffs’ Products and the Defendant’s Products are sold through
identical trade channels and placed close by on the same shelves in
outlets / shops and sold from the same aisle to the same set of
consumers. As far as online sales are concerned, both the Plaintiffs’
Products and the Defendant’s Products are sold through the same
channels and listed side by side. Hence, there is huge likelihood that
the relevant potential consumer would rely upon imperfect
recollection, and such imperfect recollection will centre on the high
degree of similarities between the product labels, trade dress, colour
combination, bottle shape of Defendant’s Products and the Plaintiffs’
Products. Given the stark similarities between the competing Trade
Dresses, the colour scheme, the Bottle Designs and specifically the
whole range of products being virtually identical, the trade channels
and counters being the same, there exists a strong likelihood of
confusion on the part of the consuming public. Therefore, the present
case is one of triple identity wherein not only the concerned class /Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 20 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
nature of goods are identical, the trade channels as well as the class of
consumers is also the same.
3.18. The Plaintiffs have spent millions of Dollars on promoting its products
under the Marks, ‘HARPIC’, ‘COLIN’ and ‘LIZOL’. The Plaintiffs
have an international market and are a registered Trade Mark
proprietor in many countries of the world including India. The
Plaintiffs apprehend that the Defendant’s Products may not comply
with the quality standards maintained by the Plaintiffs thereby causing
irreparable harm and injury to the brand equity of the Plaintiffs.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant made the following
submissions:
4.1. The Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations under Design Registration Nos.
184080 and 191291 had expired in 2015 and 2017 respectively, placing
the Designs in the public domain. The Plaintiffs are now attempting to
evergreen these expired designs by securing Trade Mark registrations
over the same bottle and cap shapes under Trade Mark Registrations
Nos. 3491010, 3491007, 3491009, 3491006, and 3491008 (“HARPIC
Bottle and Cap Marks”), contrary to the Designs Act, 2000 (“Designs
Act“).
4.2. By registering the Designs for the shape of the bottle in which the
Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark, ‘HARPIC’ are sold under the
Designs Act and enjoying a fifteen-year monopoly, the Plaintiffs
acknowledged it as a design, not a Trade Mark. Hence, they are
estopped from claiming Trade Mark protection over the same, as it
violates Sections 2(d) of the Design Act and Section 2(zb) of the Trade
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 21 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act“). The Plaintiffs further
misclassified their applications as Device Marks instead of shape of
goods to evade proper scrutiny by the Trade Marks Registry.
Consequently, the HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks are invalid, and the
infringement claim is unsustainable.
4.3. The Defendant prominently uses the Mark ‘GAINDA’ against which
the Plaintiffs do not have any objection and a distinct Rhino logo, along
with unique labels, shapes, fonts, brand names, and cap designs, all
serving as clear source identifiers. These distinguishing features
eliminate any likelihood of confusion. As has been held in Kaviraj
Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, (1965) 1 SCR 737, where sufficient added matter
distinguishes the Defendant’s goods, no actionable misrepresentation
arises. This principle was reaffirmed in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.
v. AZ Tech (India), (2017) 239 DLT 99 (DB).
4.4. Further, since the Plaintiffs’ Products are premium priced and target a
different consumer base, confusion is unlikely. Moreover, where the
Plaintiffs hold a registered design, a passing off claim must rest on
something extra beyond the registered design, such as ornamentation,
overall get-up, or trade dress as has been held in Havells India Ltd. v.
Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1662.
4.5. A non-distinctive product shape can only be registered as a Trade Mark
if consumers recognize and rely on the shape alone as a badge of origin.
The shape must still independently signify the product’s source.
Product design cannot be inherently distinctive and is protectable as a
Trade Mark only upon proof of acquired distinctiveness, as consumers
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 22 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
do not naturally view design alone as indicating product origin. In any
event, a similar shape is used by nearly every single product in the
industry due to which no monopolistic rights thereto can be conferred
on the Plaintiffs.
4.6. The Plaintiffs claim monopoly over colour combinations like Blue and
Red for the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark
‘HARPIC’, Blue, Red and White for the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’
Products under the Mark, ‘COLIN’, and Blue, Red, White and Yellow
for the Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘LIZOL’.
Such claims are legally untenable. Basic colours are not protectable
under trademark law as has been held in Colgate Palmolive Co. Ltd. v.
Patel, 2005 (31) PTC 583 (Del), Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd.,
(2017) 240 DLT 156 (DB), ITC Ltd. v. Crescendo Tobacco Agency &
Ors., 2011 (46) PTC 65 (Cal) and RB Health (US) LLC & Ors. v.
Dabur India Ltd., 2020 (84) PTC 492 (Del).
4.7. The Plaintiffs themselves use multiple colours across product ranges,
defeating the argument of exclusivity or secondary meaning. In the case
of Reckitt Benckiser (India Limited) v. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd. 2007 SCC
OnLine Del 736, it was already held that products under the Mark,
‘HARPIC’ in multiple colour variants cannot claim exclusivity over
any single colour scheme. The Plaintiffs have mechanically relied on
ex parte ad interim orders passed in uncontested cases, which have no
precedential value. Only final judicial decisions containing a legal
principle ratio decidendi qualify as precedents. Interim orders based on
prima facie or tentative findings do not have binding precedent value,
especially when issued under extraordinary powers or unique
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 23 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
circumstances as has been held in Shraddha d/o Sanjay Varshney and
others v. Union of India and other 2015(4) M.P.L.J. and State of
Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC
694.
4.8. A product’s shape or design cannot be granted Trade Mark protection
unless it has acquired secondary meaning, i.e., it must be shown that
the shape alone, without any word or logo, distinctly identifies the
source of the product. Functional or generic shapes are not inherently
distinctive and cannot be protected unless they serve as clear source
identifiers. As has been held in Knitpro International v. Examiner of
Trade Marks through Registrar of Trade Marks, (2022) 293 DLT 1.
4.9. The bottle shapes such as the angled nozzle and grip design for toilet
cleaners, and the practical forms of glass cleaner and floor disinfectant
bottles are dictated by functionality, ergonomics, and industry norms,
not by an intent to indicate source. The law does not protect functional
designs, and no exclusive rights can be claimed in them as has been
held in Dabur India Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar, 2008 (103) DRJ 596. The
colour schemes and bottle shapes used by the Defendant are widespread
in the industry and commonly used by third parties. The Plaintiffs have
also failed to disclose prior recognition of such third-party use and have
misrepresented facts. Notably, the use of blue in toilet and glass
cleaners is a well-established industry standard, symbolizing hygiene
and visibility.
4.10. The Defendant launched its business in 2016. In the year 2020, the
Defendant launched the Defendant’s toilet cleaner product. Thus, the
Defendant’s Products have been widely in the market for nearly a
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 24 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
decade. The Defendant has invested heavily in branding and
advertising, and an injunction would cause severe commercial hardship
given its long market presence. In contrast, the Plaintiffs, holding a 78%
market share, would not face irreparable harm. Thus, the balance of
convenience is in favour of the Defendant.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following
rejoinder submissions:
5.1. The learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the
Plaintiffs’ registrations for HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks are barred
by law, being exactly the same as the Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations
which were granted protection under the Designs Act but stand expired.
The Plaintiffs have made minor modifications in their bottle shape
while retaining the original distinctive shape and that consumers
associate the bottle shapes exclusively with the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark ‘HARPIC’. Reliance can be placed upon the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Mohan Lall, Proprietor of Mourya Industries
v. Sona Paint & Hardware, AIR 2013 Delhi 143, wherein it has been
held that a trade mark as defined under the Trade Marks Act includes
shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours. It is also
a settled principle of law that dual protection from both design and trade
mark law may exist where it is alleged that the configuration or shape
of a container or article acts as a trade mark or trade dress.
5.2. The Defendant is wrongly relying upon the Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1958, to submit that once the Plaintiffs had opted for
seeking protection of the shape and configuration of the bottle under
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 25 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
the Designs Act, the said design is not a trade mark as defined under
the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which has been repealed
by Section 159 of the Trade Marks Act which came into effect on
30.12.1999. In any case, as per the Designs Act, use of a registered
design as a Trade Mark can at best be a ground for its cancellation.
There is no provision under the Act which prohibits registration of a
design as a Trade Mark.
5.3. The Defendant submitted that Plaintiffs’ Trade Mark registrations for
the HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks are Device Marks and not shape /
3D Mark, however, this issue has been decided in favour of the
Plaintiffs by the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Unilever
Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) (P) Ltd., (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 417,
wherein it has been held that Trade Mark registrations adopted for the
Harpic Bottle and Cap Marks are shape marks and not merely device
marks. Further, the Division Bench has recognized the Plaintiffs’ rights
in the HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks, being registered Trade Marks,
gives the Plaintiffs exclusive rights to use and stop others from using
the HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks or bearing a shape which is
deceptively or confusingly similar to the HARPIC Bottle and Cap
Marks.
5.4. The fact that the Plaintiffs have obtained Trade Mark registrations for
HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks in both black and white as well as in
colour clearly shows that the Plaintiffs are claiming rights in the
distinctive colour scheme and overall Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’
Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’, contrary to what is alleged by the
Defendant. The Plaintiffs have obtained several other registrations for
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 26 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
their labels and are also the owners of copyrights in such labels /
artworks. The Plaintiffs have continuously enforced their rights in the
Trade Dress for the Plaintiffs’ Products under the Mark ‘HARPIC’.
5.5. Allegations of third party use are no defence in an infringement action
as has been held in several decisions, in any case, the third parties cited
by the Defendants are mostly infringers with little to no market share
as has been held in National Bell Co. and Gupta Industrial
Corporation v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 898 ,
Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 (38) PTC 49 and Corn
Products Refining v. Shangrila Foods Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC
142. The Plaintiffs have also been successful in stopping several third
parties from infringing their rights and taking down all the listings and
/ or in getting third parties to change their product shape / trade dress.
The alleged reasoning given by the Defendant that blue colour is used
to indicate hygiene and freshness are frivolous and an afterthought. The
colour blue of the glass cleaning product is only on account of a blue
dye used by such third-parties. The entire range of the Defendant’s
phenyl product, which is also a hygiene product, has a completely
different shape / colour combination. Toilet cleaners and glass cleaners
are sold in various colours and shapes by third parties.
5.6. In the judgment of Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and Another v.
Sudhir Bhatia and Others, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 106 it was held that
if a party for no apparent reason adopts a deceptively similar trade mark
or a deceptively similar trade dress to another, it would be difficult to
avoid an order of injunction as the Court assumes that the adoption was
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 27 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
dishonest and indicates that the defendant tried to pass off its goods as
those of the Plaintiffs.
5.7. The Defendant’s argument that there is sufficient added matter to
distinguish the Defendant’s goods is also frivolous as evident from the
detailed comparison. The Defendant is maliciously selling the
Defendant’s toilet cleaner product in two different bottle shapes, both
of which have been copied from the HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks.
5.8. The objections raised by the Defendant regarding delay and laches are
frivolous as evident from the averments in the Plaint and the
Defendant’s own documents. The Plaintiffs filed the present suit as
soon as it found that the Defendant is involved in the sale of the
Defendant’s Products using the Impugned Trade Dresses.
5.9. The Defendant has failed to raise any credible defence and the Plaintiffs
have made a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction. The
balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendant and grave and irreparable injury is being caused to the
Plaintiffs on each day that the Defendant is continuing with its acts of
infringement, passing off and unfair competition.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
6. Passing off is based on similarities of get-up of packaging used by the
defendant that amounts to misrepresentation damaging the plaintiff. The
plaintiff must prove that the get-up used by the plaintiff is distinctive and the
defendant’s get-up is similar enough to deceive, notwithstanding any other
differences between the two sets of goods. The plaintiff must make out that
the defendant’s goods are calculated to be mistaken for the plaintiff’s goods,
and both the goods unquestionably resemble each other and the features that
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 28 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
resemble with each other are not common to the trade. The distinctive nature
of the features adopted by the plaintiff must be ‘eye catching’ and serve to
identify the goods of one particular source. The plaintiff must show that the
confusion arises from those features of the getup, which are distinctive to the
plaintiff taken in combination with each other. The plaintiff cannot pick and
choose the elements of get-up and must be considered as a whole for
comparing it with the get-up of the defendant as a whole, including the
features which are not found in the plaintiff’s get-up, including the brand
names or other marks.
7. The Plaintiffs have submitted that the Plaintiffs’ Products under the
Mark ‘HARPIC’ were launched in India in 2001, the Plaintiffs’ Products
under the Mark ‘COLIN’ were launched in India in 1998 and the Plaintiffs’
Products under the Mark ‘LIZOL’ were launched in India in 1996 and have
been in continuous and uninterrupted use since then. By the Defendant’s own
admission, the Plaintiffs have a market share of 78%. The Plaintiffs have
obtained various trade mark registrations to protect the Intellectual Property
in the Plaintiffs’ Products. The Plaintiffs have also spent a substantial amount
of money on the promotion, publicity and advertisement of the Plaintiffs’
Products in all available media. The Plaintiffs also have considerable turnover
in respect of Plaintiffs’ Products which is depicted by the year-on-year
increase in the last five years as demonstrated by the Plaintiffs.
8. The above submissions on behalf of the Plaintiffs shows that the
Plaintiffs have built considerable reputation and goodwill for the Plaintiffs’
Products over time, which is evident from the sales turnover and the
marketing expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs.
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 29 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
9. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs’ Products use distinctive
Trade Dresses which have been used to sell the Plaintiffs’ Products for over
two and a half decades across India with only minor modifications to keep
with the changing times. The Plaintiffs’ Products are identified with the shape
of the bottles which have several unique features. It is submitted by the
Plaintiffs that the Trade Dresses for the Plaintiffs’ Products, have come to be
identified exclusively with the Plaintiffs on account of extensive sales,
advertisement, promotion and high quality of Plaintiffs’ Products.
10. The Plaintiffs have contended that the Defendant’s Products are being
sold in the Impugned Trade Dresses which are identical and / or deceptively
similar to the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses and this act of the Defendant is a
deliberate attempt to pass off the Defendant’s Products as those of the
Plaintiffs. It is submitted by the Plaintiffs that the Impugned Trade Dresses
lead the consumer to believe that there is an association between the
Defendant’s Products and the Plaintiffs, where none exists. The Plaintiffs have
alleged that both the Plaintiffs’ Products and the Defendant’s Products look
identical and are sold in bottles which have identical shapes and configuration,
thus, increasing the likelihood of confusion. The use and placement of
essential features of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses on the Impugned Trade
Dresses used for the Defendant’s Products will lead to confusion and / or
deception in the minds of the general public.
11. When there is no valid explanation given as to why the Impugned Trade
Dresses have similarity of essential features, get-up, layout, colour
combination and placement of features with the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses, the
Impugned Trade Dresses are liable to be restrained. The Plaintiffs have
contended that the Impugned Trade Dresses are a slavish imitation of the
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 30 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses, which is evident from the side-by-side comparison
of the Plaintiffs’ Products and the Defendant’s Products.
12. The Plaintiffs have contended that in passing off action, similarities
rather than dissimilarities have to be taken note and the colour scheme and
overall effect of the packaging have to be seen. The Plaintiffs have submitted
that the Impugned Trade Dresses are completely dishonest and mala fide with
the clear intention of passing off the Defendant’s Products as those of the
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also relied upon Midas Hygiene (supra) to argue
that if a party for no apparent reason adopts a deceptively similar trade dress,
it would be difficult to avoid an order of injunction as it is assumed that the
adoption was dishonest and indicates that the defendant tried to pass off its
goods as those of the plaintiff. The Plaintiffs have further submitted that the
essential features of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses are not common to the trade
and are distinctive.
13. The Defendant has submitted that the prominent House Mark of the
Defendant ‘GAINDA’ is the distinguishing feature in the Defendant’s
Products, which dispels any possibility of confusion between the Defendant’s
Products and the Plaintiffs’ Products. Further, it was contended that the
Plaintiffs’ Products have multiple variants with different colour combinations
and the Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to monopolise all of the colours.
14. The Defendant has further submitted that the Plaintiffs have tried to
evergreen the Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations by registering the same as Trade
Marks after the expiration of the exclusive rights to use granted to them by
virtue of their registration under the Designs Act. Once the Plaintiffs have
obtained registration under the Designs Act, they cannot be permitted to
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 31 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
register them as Trade Marks as well. Consequently, the HARPIC Bottle and
Cap Marks are invalid, and the infringement claim is unsustainable.
15. The Defendant further contended that the bottle shapes such as the
angled nozzle and grip design for toilet cleaners, and the practical forms of
glass cleaner and floor disinfectant bottles are dictated by functionality,
ergonomics, and industry norms, not by an intent to indicate source. The law
does not protect functional designs, no exclusive rights can be claimed in
them.
16. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant and considering the material placed on record, the overall
comparison of the Defendant’s Products with the Plaintiffs’ Products shows
that there is an attempt to imitate the essential features of the Plaintiffs’ Trade
Dresses by the Impugned Trade Dresses. The Impugned Trade Dresses are
deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses as the essential features of
the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses such as the colour of the packaging, the colour
of the cap, the colour of the liquid, the shape of the bottle are copied in the
Impugned Trade Dresses. The overall comparison of the get-up at the point of
sale creates an impression that the Impugned Trade Dresses are an imitation
of the essential features of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses. Considering the
deceptive similarity of the Impugned Trade Dresses to the Plaintiffs’ Trade
Dresses, the judgment in Havells India Ltd. (supra) will not further the case
of the Defendant.
17. It is not necessary to have exact identity for side-by-side comparison
between the Impugned Trade Dresses and the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses. It is
sufficient that if there is an overall similarity in the idea or impression assessed
from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence having imperfect
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 32 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
recollection. A holistic view of the Impugned Trade Dresses appears to be
deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses. The Defendant has not
offered any explanation or bona fide reason for adopting the Impugned Trade
Dresses having identical features to that of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses.
18. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant that
Plaintiffs’ registrations for HARPIC Bottle and Cap Marks are barred by law,
being exactly the same as the Plaintiffs’ Design Registrations which were
granted protection under the Designs Act but stand expired cannot be accepted
in light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Mohan Lall (supra),
wherein it was held that dual protection from both design and trade mark law
may exist where it is alleged that the configuration or shape of a container or
article acts as a trade mark or trade dress. The decision of the Five Judge
Bench of this Court in Carlsberg Breweries vs Som Distilleries & Breweries
Ltd., AIR 2019 Delhi 23, did not overrule this decision of the Full Bench in
Mohan Lall (supra) and held that as long as the elements of the Design are
not used as a trade mark but rather as a larger trade dress, the presentation of
the product through its packaging and so on can be protected.
19. It is settled law that to determine the passing off, the focus must be on
the similarities rather than dissimilarities. The overall appearance at first
impression is crucial to identify the passing off. The meticulous side-by-side
dissection is not necessary and the trade dress has to be judged as a whole.
Based on the overall get-up of the Defendant’s Products, it is evident that the
same is likely to cause confusion as the dominant similarities between the
Impugned Trade Dresses and the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses overwhelm the
minor differences. The argument that the House-Mark, ‘GAINDA’ will dispel
the confusion, cannot be accepted in view of the overall similarity which is
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 33 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
evident from the holistic comparison of the Defendant’s Products with the
Plaintiffs’ Products, therefore, the judgments in Kaviraj Pandit (supra), and
Intex Technologies (supra) will not help the case of the Defendant.
20. The Plaintiffs have prima facie established the goodwill by showing the
consistent and uninterrupted use of the Plaintiffs’ Products since the last two
and a half decades. Considering the sales turnover, it indicates that the
Plaintiffs have a longstanding and formidable reputation.
21. The Defendant’s Products were launched in 2016 and there is no
dispute that the Plaintiffs’ Products were well established in the market at the
time of the launch of the Defendant’s Products. Therefore, the Defendant
cannot deny the Plaintiffs’ goodwill or attempt to have a free ride on the same.
22. The Plaintiffs cannot claim monopoly on the use of blue, red, white or
yellow colours or any other colour if they are considered individually.
However, the distinctive combination, arrangement and presentation resulting
in ensemble, which has been in use for a considerably long period have
acquired secondary meaning in favour of the Plaintiffs’ Products. Even
though the individual components of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses are
common to the trade, the overall get-up of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses
requires protection. The rights of the Plaintiffs stem from the overall get-up
of the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses and not just the colours considered
individually and therefore the judgments in Colgate Palmolive (supra),
Britannia Industries (supra), ITC Ltd. (supra), RB Health (supra) and
Reckitt Benckiser (supra) will not help the case of the Defendant.
23. The Defendant’s reliance on third-party material does not disentitle the
Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs are not required to sue every small infringer as held
in Pankaj Goel (supra), Corn Products (supra) and National Bell (supra).
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 34 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
24. The Plaintiffs have, prima facie, established distinctiveness in the
Plaintiffs’ Trade Dresses whereas the Defendant has not been able to establish
any distinction between the Impugned Trade Dresses and the Plaintiffs’ Trade
Dresses. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have been able to establish the ingredients
of passing off as per the settled principles of law.
25. Considering the submissions made by the Parties and the case laws
relied upon by them, it is directed that the Defendant, its proprietor, directors,
partners, employees, servants, agents, franchises, representatives, suppliers,
promoters and all acting on behalf of the Defendant are restrained from
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly and indirectly
dealing with:
i. Toilet cleaners using the Trade Dress
' ', which is deceptively similar to the
Plaintiffs' Trade Dress ' ' for the Plaintiffs' toilet cleaning
products under the Mark 'HARPIC';
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 35 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
ii. Glass cleaners using the Trade Dress ' ', which is deceptively
similar to the Plaintiffs' Trade Dress ' ' for the Plaintiffs' glass
and house cleaning products under the Mark ‘COLIN’; and
iii. Disinfectants, using the Trade Dress ‘ ‘, which is deceptively
similar to the Plaintiffs’ Trade Dress ‘ ‘ for the Plaintiffs’
disinfectant products under the Mark ‘LIZOL’.
26. The Application stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
TEJAS KARIA, J
MARCH 28, 2026/’AK’
Signature Not Verified CS(COMM) 1052/2024 Page 36 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.03.2026
18:30:50
