The Madras High Court stayed a single judge ruling declaring “VAPO” as publici juris in a trademark dispute between Procter & Gamble Company and IPI India, observing that the finding needs further examination without restraining mark usage.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has put a hold on a recent ruling by a single judge that declared the term “VAPO” as “publici juris” (belonging to the public) in a trademark dispute between Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), the maker of the well-known Vicks VapoRub, and IPI India Pvt Ltd, which produces Vaporin Cold Rub.
A Division Bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and K Kumaresh Babu stayed the single judge’s ruling regarding ‘VAPO’ after reviewing appeals lodged by P&G. They clarified that there is no injunction preventing IPI India from using its registered mark but noted that the single judge’s determination that “VAPO” is publici juris requires further scrutiny.
ALSO READ: Trademarks Act| Prior Use Prevails Over Subsequent Registration: Delhi HC
The single judge had dismissed P&G’s petitions seeking the cancellation of trademarks registered in favor of IPI India for the brands “VAPORIN,” “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” concluding that “VAPO” is publici juris and cannot be monopolized.
The Court stated,
“The observations of the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.26 of the common order now under appeal require further examination. To that extent, the observations made in Paragraph No.26 alone are stayed, particularly with respect to the observation that the word ’VAPO’ is publici juris,”
The appeals stem from an order by Justice N Senthilkumar, who dismissed three petitions filed by P&G under Section 47 (non-use removal), Section 57 (register rectification), and Section 125 (High Court jurisdiction) of the Trade Marks Act, seeking to cancel registrations granted to IPI India for the marks “VAPORIN,” “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” and associated device marks in Classes 3 and 5.
P&G argued that it possesses long-standing statutory and common law rights in the marks “VICKS,” “VAPORUB,” and other VAPO-formative marks. The company objected to IPI India’s marketing of products like “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” citing similarities in name, trade dress, and overall commercial impression with Vicks VapoRub. P&G accused IPI India of a dishonest intention to leverage the goodwill associated with the Vicks brand.
ALSO READ: Trademark Battle: Court Refuses Injunction Against Anthropic PBC, Issues Summons
However, the single judge on January 6 stated that rival trademarks should be evaluated as a whole, without dissection, from the perspective of an average consumer with ordinary intelligence and an imperfect memory.
The court rejected P&G’s argument for exclusivity over “Vapo,” asserting that it is merely a shortened form of “vapour” commonly used to describe vapor-based medicinal products. Noting extensive third-party usage, it concluded that the term is publici juris and cannot be monopolized. This conclusion has now been stayed by the Division Bench pending further hearings on the appeals.
Senior Advocate PS Raman, along with Advocate Abishek Jenasenan, represented P&G, while Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy represented IPI India.
Case Title: The Procter and Gamble Company Vs IPI India Private Limited
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE