The Madras High Court has stayed a single judge’s finding that the word “VAPO” is publici juris in a trademark dispute between The Procter and Gamble Company (P&G) and IPI India Private Limited.
P&G manufactures Vicks VapoRub, while IPI India sells products under the mark “Vaporin Cold Rub.”
Division Bench Stays Key Observation
A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the interim order on February 17. The Bench was hearing appeals filed by P&G against a common order delivered by Justice N. Senthilkumar.
The Court clarified that it has not restrained IPI India from using its registered mark. However, it held that the single judge’s observations in Paragraph 26 of the earlier order require closer examination.
To that limited extent, the Bench stayed the finding that the word “VAPO” is publici juris.
Background: P&G’s Rectification Petitions
The dispute arises from a January 6 order that dismissed three petitions filed by P&G under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act.
Through these petitions, P&G sought cancellation of IPI India’s registrations for:
- “VAPORIN”
- “VAPORIN COLD RUB”
- Related device marks in Classes 3 and 5
P&G claimed longstanding statutory and common law rights over marks such as “VICKS” and “VAPORUB.” It argued that IPI India’s branding created a likelihood of confusion.
According to P&G, the marks were deceptively similar in name, trade dress, and overall commercial impression. It also alleged dishonest adoption to ride on the goodwill of the Vicks brand.
Single Judge’s Findings
In the January 6 order, the single judge emphasised that courts must assess trademarks as a whole. He cautioned against dissecting marks into individual components.
The Court applied the test of an average consumer with ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection.
It rejected P&G’s claim of exclusivity over the term “Vapo.” The judge observed that “Vapo” derives from “vapour” and commonly describes vapour-based medicinal products. Citing third-party usage, the Court concluded that the expression is publici juris and cannot be monopolised.
This specific conclusion now stands stayed pending further hearing of the appeals.
Appearance
Senior Advocate P.S. Raman, along with Advocate Abishek Jenasenan, appeared for P&G.
Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy represented IPI India.
