‘Vapo’ Is Generic and Public Property: Madras High Court Rejects Vicks’ Trademark Claim

The Madras High Court has ruled that the word “Vapo” is a generic and descriptive term that belongs to the public. As a result, Procter & Gamble Company, which sells Vicks VapoRub, cannot claim exclusive rights over the use of the word in trademarks.

Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order dated January 6, dismissed three trademark rectification petitions filed by P&G. These petitions sought the removal of trademark registrations granted to IPI India Private Limited for the marks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB” under Classes 3 and 5 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court held that “Vapo” is derived from the word “vapour” and is commonly used for vapour-based medicinal products. Since the term is widely used across the industry, it is publici juris, meaning it cannot be monopolised by any single company.

P&G argued that it has long-standing statutory and common law rights over the marks “VICKS”, “VAPORUB” and other “Vapo”-based names, citing the brand’s long presence in India and abroad. It also alleged that IPI India’s products were deceptively similar in name, packaging and overall appearance, and were designed to benefit from the goodwill of the Vicks brand.

IPI India countered these claims by stating that “Vapo” is descriptive in nature and commonly used in the trade. The company relied on evidence of several third-party products using similar prefixes and highlighted its own continuous use and registration of “VAPORIN” products since 2013.

After comparing the competing marks as a whole and from the perspective of an average consumer with ordinary intelligence, the Court found no likelihood of confusion. It noted that “VICKS VAPORUB” and “VAPORIN” are visually and phonetically different, and their packaging, colour schemes and trade dress are clearly distinct.

The Court ultimately concluded that “Vapo” cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark and dismissed all three petitions filed by P&G.