Mr. Akash Arora Trading As M/S Grand Chemical Works vs Reckitt And Colman Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited & Ors.

$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 CM APPL. 22574-75/2026
MR. AKASH ARORA TRADING AS M/S GRAND CHEMICAL
WORKS ...... Appellant

Through: Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan
Swarup, Ms. Tanya Arora, Mr. Rajit
Ghosh, Ms. Aastha Verma, Mr.
Shitanshu Abhishek, Advs.

versus

RECKITT AND COLMAN OVERSEAS) HYGIENE HOME
LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Chander M Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Prakriti
Varshney and Mr Prashant, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 and CM APPL. 22574/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
28.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 46336/2024 filed
in CS (COMM) No. 1052/2024, whereby the Respondent’s (i.e. plaintiff’s)
application for interim injunction has been allowed and the Appellant (i.e.,
defendant) has been restrained from using the impugned trade dresses for its
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 1 of 12

product ‘Glass cleaner-
, Toilet Cleaner-

and Disinfectant-
’.
2. In this order we are considering a limited prayer of the Appellant
seeking leave to exhaust its packaged stock and unpackaged stock bearing
impugned trade dresses only for its two products (i) Toilet Cleaner; and (ii)
Glass Cleaner, under its trademark ‘GAINDA’.
The Appellant has clarified that it is not seeking any relief qua the
trade dress of Surface Cleaner/
, which has also been injuncted.
3. The Appellant has filed an affidavit dated 10.04.2026 furnishing
details of the batch numbers of the packaged stock of Toilet Cleaner and
Glass Cleaner manufactured in the last three months with GST invoice
numbers. The Appellant states that these products are already in the market
with its distributors and/or retailers and the Appellant seeks permission to
sell the stock in a time bound manner (‘Products existing in the market’).
In addition to the existing manufactured and packaged goods, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 2 of 12

Appellant seeks leave to use its unfinished packaging stock consisting of the
empty bottles, labels, bottle caps etc. which have been procured from third-
party vendors, but are yet to be filled up with the liquid and packaged at the
factory (‘Products to the packaged and sold to the market’). The Appellant
seeks a period of 90 days to complete packaging of this unfinished inventory
packaging inventory of plastic bottles and and sell the same in the market.
4. The Appellant states that for the product Toilet Cleaner, 7,15,000
packaged bottles were already in the market, with the distributors/retailers,
before the issuance of the injunction order. It is stated that additionally the
Appellant seeks leave to package the 2,40,000 empty plastic bottles of Toilet
Cleaner lying in its factory premises.
Similarly, for its product Glass Cleaner, it submits that 2,15,000
packaged bottles were already in the market, with the distributors/retailers,
before the issuance of the injunction order. It is stated that additionally the
Appellant seeks leave to package the 1,20,000 empty bottles of Glass
Cleaner lying in its factory.
The Appellant submits that Respondent can carry out verification of
the existing empty bottles of the Toilet Cleaner (2,40,000) and Glass Cleaner
(1,20,000) and also documents and invoices evidencing the already
manufactured goods i.e., Toilet Cleaner (7,15,000) and Glass Cleaner
(2,15,000). It is further submitted that all sales would be duly accounted for
and reported to the Court by way of invoices and audited statements.
5. Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, learned senior counsel for the Appellant states
that the Appellant sells the goods under its trademark ‘GAINDA’ and there
is no dispute with respect to the distinctiveness of the said mark. He states
that the mark ‘GAINDA’ is distinct from the Respondent’s marks
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 3 of 12

‘HARPIC’ and ‘COLIN’ and therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion
with the consumers. He states that the dispute is only pertaining to the shape
of the bottles, which would be decided by this Court in the appeal, on merits.
He states that it is the admitted case in the plaint that Appellant had been
selling these products since 2019 and though, this suit was filed in 2025 the
injunction has only been granted on 28.03.2026. He stated that in these
circumstances, as an interim measure the Court while granting the interim
injunction ought to have given reasonable time to the Appellants to clear its
existing stocks. He states that such a direction would have been merited to
balance the rights of the parties.
5.1 He states that if the Appellant is not permitted to sell the inventory
there will be a financial loss as the inventory would become dead waste
leading to grave economic hardship and environmental waste. He states that
Respondent can be compensated for its alleged financial loss as the
Appellant will file the invoices of sale before the Court.
5.2 He states that the Appellant reserves its right to address the appeal on
merits with respect to the untenable proprietary claim of the Respondent on
the shape of the bottles, after the design registrations for the bottles have
admittedly lapsed. He states that the Respondent cannot claim proprietary
rights on the shape of the bottle(s) which is completely functional.
5.3 He submits that I.A. No. 8747/2026, which had been filed before the
learned Single Judge seeking permission to exhaust existing stock, was
subsequently withdrawn on 17.04.2026 in light of the detailed disclosure
already placed on record pursuant to the Court’s order dated 08.04.2026. He
states that through the affidavit dated 10.04.2026, the Appellant has
comprehensively disclosed its finished and unfinished inventory, including
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 4 of 12

stock already in the market and lying with it, thereby addressing the
concerns underlying the earlier application. He states that in these
circumstances, and with the issue of stock exhaustion being effectively
subsumed within the present proceedings and disclosures before the Court,
the Appellant chose to withdraw the said application.
5.4 He states that the Appellant has a turnover in excess of Rs. 50 crores
and is not a fly-by-night operator and therefore, the accounts maintained by
it for the sales will duly protect the interests of the Respondent.
5.5 He states that period of 90 days prayed for at paragraph 14 of the
affidavit dated 10.04.2026 is for permitting the Appellant to complete
packaging and liquidate the stock at its end.
5.6 He states that Appellant’s retailers may be granted one (1) year to
liquidate the inventory of the Products existing in the market and Products to
the packaged and sold in the market.
6. In reply, Mr. Chander M Lall, learned senior counsel for the
Respondent states that no such permission can be granted to the Appellant
unless the Appellant is willing to accept the impugned judgment as the final
order. He states if the Appellant accepts the impugned judgment and
concedes to the proprietary claims of the Respondent, the Court may in such
a situation consider permitting the Appellant to exhaust its stock as prayed
for. He further submits that the volume of stock claimed by the Appellant is
substantial and permitting its sale would allow the impugned goods to
remain in circulation for a considerable period, thereby negating the
injunction.
6.1 He states that the details of the finished and unfinished stock given in
the affidavit dated 10.04.2026 are contrary to the pleadings made in I.A.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 5 of 12

8747/2026 filed before the learned Single Judge for seeking similar relief.
He states that the information furnished in affidavit dated 10.04.2026 is
unreliable.
6.2 He states that the Respondent has 78% market share for these
products and the Appellant only has 0.8% market share. He states that if the
Appellant is permitted to release the unfinished stock in the market it would
remain in circulation for several years considering the slow pace at which it
is selling its goods.
6.3 He states that the Respondent became aware of the Appellant’s
activities in the course of enforcement proceedings against a third party
engaged in manufacturing infringing bottles, against whom separate suit
proceedings were instituted and injunction orders obtained.
6.4 He states that even after the passing of the impugned injunction order
dated 28.03.2026, the Appellant has adopted another bottle shape/trade
dress, which, according to the Respondent, is also deceptively similar to its
bottles/trademark. It is contended that such conduct is impermissible, and
the Respondent reserves its rights to take appropriate action in accordance
with law.
6.5 He states that the liquid i.e., Toilet Cleaner and Glass Cleaner are not
perishable in nature. The liquid contents can be repackaged in a non-
infringing trade dress. The unused packaging material, including plastic
bottles, do not have any shelf life. Therefore, no equity arises in favour of
permitting use of existing inventory of bottles during the pendency of the
appeal.
7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and the material
facts have been noted in paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 of this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 6 of 12

8. The inventory list provided by the Appellant and explained in its
affidavit dated 10.04.2026, can be summarized reads as under:

No relief has been sought qua the inventory of Surface Cleaner and is
therefore not a subject matter of this order.
9. The Appellant has handed over sheet depicting the Respondent’s
product alongside the Appellant’s impugned product in respect of the Toilet
Cleaner, along with images of the Appellant’s current packaging. The said
sheet is annexed as Schedule I to this order.
10. Upon perusal of the material on record, and in particular image no. 2
(
) and image no. 4 (
) of Schedule I , a suggestion was put to
the Appellant that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties, the Appellant can be permitted to utilize the existing 2,40,000 empty
bottles subject to modifications in the trade dress, namely, that the cap shall
be changed to yellow and the label shall correspond to the revised yellow
label as reflected in image no. 4. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant,
on instructions, accepts the said condition and undertakes that the existing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 7 of 12

stock of 2,40,000 empty bottles (as seen in image no. 2) shall be packaged
and used only with yellow caps and the revised yellow label (as seen in
image no. 4). The Appellant sells its goods under a distinct trademark
GAINDA and with the distinct yellow label as well as yellow cap, we are
satisfied that the alleged similarity between the bottles will stand
substantially reduced.
Accordingly, the Appellant is hereby permitted by this Court to utilize
the said 2,40,000 empty bottles for packaging of the Toilet Cleaner with a
yellow cap and the label as seen in image no. 4.
11. The Appellant has also handed over a similar sheet in respect of the
Glass Cleaner, depicting the Respondent’s product (image no. 1), the
injuncted product (image no. 2), and the current packaging (image no. 4).
The said sheet is also annexed as Schedule I to this order.

12. Having considered image no. 2 (
) and image no. 4 (
) of
Schedule I, it is directed that for packaging the empty 1,20,000 bottles the
Appellant shall replace the blue spray nozzle appearing in the impugned
packaging (image no. 2) with the white spray nozzle as reflected in the
revised packaging (image no. 4).
Subject to this modification, the Appellant is hereby permitted by this
Court to utilize the existing stock of 1,20,000 empty bottles for packaging its
product.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 8 of 12

13. To address the concerns of the Respondent with respect to the
authenticity of the numbers of empty bottles as well as the finished stocks
provided by the Appellant in its affidavit dated 10.04.2026, we accept the
submission of the Appellant, that Respondent’s representative can visit the
premises of the Appellant to verify the invoices pertaining to the finished
stock, including goods ledger as well as the existence of the empty plastic
bottles within three (3) days from today i.e., on or before 24.04.2026 at
11:00 A.M.
14. The Appellant will complete the packaging of the empty bottles on or
before 31.05.2026. The Appellant will file an affidavit on or before
01.06.2026 in this appeal duly disclosing the manufacturing date and the
batch numbers of the packaged inventory.
The Appellant and its distributors will be permitted to complete sale
of the inventory to the retailer(s) till 31.07.2026, as prayed for at paragraph
14 of the affidavit dated 10.04.2026. After 31.07.2026, in case there is any
stock lying with Appellant and/or its distributors, the same shall be recalled.
After 31.07.2026, neither the Appellant nor its distributors will be permitted
to sell the stock any further to the retailers. The Appellant will file an
affidavit on or before 07.08.2026 making a full disclosure of the status of the
sold and unsold inventory.
After 31.07.2026, if the stock is available with the retailers, the
retailers shall be permitted to sell the said stock until 31.12.2026. However,
after 31.12.2026 if any stock remains with the retailers the same shall be
recalled by the Appellant and/or its distributors. The Appellant will file an
affidavit on or before 07.01.2027 making a full disclosure of the status of the
sold and unsold inventory.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 9 of 12

15. We clarify that the aforesaid directions have been passed without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the Appellant’s challenge to the
merits of the impugned judgment.
16. In our considered opinion, liberty to the Appellant for exhausting its
inventory would be necessary to balance the equities, considering the fact
that the Appellant had been in the market since 2016 and was bound to have
inventory when the injunction was granted. It would have been appropriate
to grant reasonable time to the Appellant to liquidate the stock and transition
to new packaging. We find merit that the impact of the injunction may result
in environmental waste and financial losses to the Appellant which would
far outweigh the loss to the Respondent herein. Since the unsold stock of the
Appellant is inventoried and the Appellant will file audited accounts, any
alleged loss of profits to the Respondent can be compensated with the final
decree. We are not persuaded that any undue loss will be caused to the
Respondent if Appellant is permitted to exhaust its finished and unfinished
stock in a time bound manner. Such a direction would be merited even if we
were to reject the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment.
17. The issuance of such a direction is well within our jurisdiction as an
Appellate Court while adjudicating upon the present interim application
seeking stay of the impugned judgment.
18. The Appellant is directed to file an affidavit of its proprietor giving an
undertaking accepting the terms and conditions imposed in this order within
one (1) week. In case, no affidavit is filed, the Appellant will not be entitled
to rely upon this order.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 10 of 12

19. List the appeal for further hearing on 08.07.2026.


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J


V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
hp/AM
APRIL 21, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 11 of 12

SCHEDULE-I





Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:21.04.2026
21:32
FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 Page 12 of 12