Delhi High Court Restrains ‘Gainda’ Cleaning Products for Copying Harpic, Colin and Lizol Trade Dress

Delhi High Court Restrains ‘Gainda’ Cleaning Products for Copying Harpic, Colin and Lizol Trade Dress

Introduction

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Grand Chemical Works from manufacturing and selling cleaning products under the “Gainda” mark after finding that the impugned products deceptively imitated the trade dress of Reckitt’s well-known Harpic, Colin, and Lizol brands.

Factual Background

Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Ltd., along with its group entities, alleged that Grand Chemical Works was marketing toilet cleaners, glass cleaners, and disinfectants under the “Gainda” range in packaging and bottle configurations closely resembling Harpic, Colin, and Lizol. The plaintiffs pointed out that their products have been sold in India since the late 1990s and early 2000s and are associated with distinctive trade dress features such as unique bottle shapes, angled nozzles, cap designs, colour combinations, and characteristic liquid colours. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had slavishly copied these essential features, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.

Procedural Background

A commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off was instituted before the Delhi High Court against Akash Arora, proprietor of Grand Chemical Works. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs sought interim injunctive relief to restrain further manufacture and sale of the impugned products pending trial. The defendant resisted the plea by asserting that the bottle features were functional and commonly used across the industry.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s “Gainda” products deceptively copied the essential trade dress features of Harpic, Colin, and Lizol.

2. Whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off and distinctiveness in their trade dress.

3. Whether the use of the “Gainda” house mark and rhino logo was sufficient to dispel consumer confusion.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s products were a slavish imitation of their established trade dress, copying the bottle shape, angled nozzle, cap colour, packaging colours, and liquid appearance. It was argued that these features had acquired immense distinctiveness through long and extensive market use. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiffs were impermissibly seeking to “evergreen” expired design rights through trademark law. It was submitted that the bottle features were functional and common to the trade, and that the prominent “Gainda” brand name with a rhino device was sufficient to avoid confusion.

Reasoning and Analysis

The bench of Justice Tejas Karia rejected the defendant’s arguments at the interim stage and held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case of passing off. The Court emphasized that in trade dress disputes, the overall get-up and commercial impression of the competing products must be compared rather than dissecting individual features in isolation. On such comparison, the Court found that the defendant had imitated the essential and dominant features of the plaintiffs’ products, including bottle shape, colour combinations, cap colours, liquid colours, and packaging style.

The Court was not persuaded by the argument that the “Gainda” name and rhino logo were sufficient distinguishing factors, observing that the dominant similarities overwhelmed the minor differences. It further noted that no bona fide explanation had been offered for adoption of nearly identical features, strengthening the inference of deliberate imitation.

Decision

The Delhi High Court restrained Grand Chemical Works and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in toilet cleaners, glass cleaners, and disinfectants using trade dress deceptively similar to the Harpic, Colin, and Lizol product range pending further proceedings.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall with Advocates Nancy Roy, Prakriti Varshney and Annanya Mehan. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Senior Advocate Darpan Wadhwa with Advocates Sudeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Tanya Arora, Rajit Ghosh and Aastha Verma.