- The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Reckitt Benckiser v. Godrej gives an important reminder: a company cannot use branding law to keep a monopoly over a bottle shape after its design protection has run out.
- Reckitt Benckiser, known for its widely recognized Harpic toilet cleaner, had earlier secured design protection over its distinctive “duck neck” bottle. This design, functional and visually identifiable, enjoyed exclusivity for a limited statutory period. However, once the design registration expired, Godrej introduced its “Spic” toilet cleaner in a bottle featuring a similar bent-neck configuration. With no subsisting design rights, Reckitt turned to trademark and trade dress law, asserting rights over the overall “look and feel” of its product packaging.
- The High Court cancelled an earlier order that had stopped Godrej from using its bottle. It made three key points:
- The design protection is inherently time-bound. Once it expires, the design enters the public domain, making it available for competitors to use freely. Allowing continued exclusivity through another IP regime would defeat the purpose of limited-term protection.
- Reckitt’s registration showed the bottle together with other elements (bottle plus cap and branding). It could not pick only the general bent‑neck shape and claim that shape belongs to it alone.
- The overall product packaging can still be protected can still be protected if it is distinctive and likely to cause consumer confusion. But, merely adopting a similar functional shape, now common in the industry, is insufficient to establish passing off or infringement.
- Therefore, once the time‑limited protection for a bottle shape ends, competitors can use similar shapes, as long as they do not copy the total look of the product so closely that customers are misled about who is selling it.
- Copy of the Judgment can be accessed at