A simmering trademark clash over cold-rub branding has taken a new turn, with the Madras High Court stepping in to temporarily freeze a key finding that declared the word “VAPO” to be public property.
The dispute pits global consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Company—maker of the well-known Vicks VapoRub—against IPI India Pvt Ltd, which markets a rival product under the “Vaporin” label.
Earlier this year, a single judge had dismissed P&G’s attempt to cancel IPI India’s registrations for “VAPORIN,” “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” and associated device marks. In doing so, the court held that “VAPO” is a shorthand for “vapour,” widely used across the trade, and therefore incapable of exclusive ownership. The judge concluded that the term had slipped into the public domain—publici juris—and could not be monopolised by any one company.
But that conclusion is now under scrutiny.
A Division Bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and K Kumaresh Babu has stayed only that specific observation—namely, that “VAPO” is publici juris. The rest of the earlier order remains intact for now. Notably, there is no restraint on IPI India’s continued use of its registered marks.
The appellate bench made it clear that the single judge’s reasoning, particularly in the paragraph branding “VAPO” as public property, warrants deeper examination. Until that review is complete, the declaration stands suspended.
The appeals arise from P&G’s petitions filed under provisions of the Trade Marks Act seeking removal and rectification of IPI India’s registrations. The multinational company asserted longstanding statutory and common law rights in “VICKS,” “VAPORUB,” and other marks built around the “VAPO” prefix. It argued that IPI India’s branding—“VAPORIN,” “VAPORIN COLD RUB,” and promotional phrases such as “Vapor In, Stress Out. Anytime, Anywhere”—too closely echoed the commercial impression of Vicks VapoRub in name and presentation.
IPI India countered that trademarks must be assessed in their entirety, not dissected syllable by syllable. The single judge agreed, emphasizing the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Given the descriptive nature of the word “vapour” and its widespread use in medicinal products, the court had reasoned that “VAPO” could not be ring-fenced by one manufacturer.
Now, that reasoning hangs in balance.
For P&G, the stay offers a fresh opportunity to argue that “VAPO” forms an integral and distinctive part of its brand architecture. For IPI India, the immediate relief lies in the absence of any injunction against its products.
The next round in this branding battle will determine whether “VAPO” remains a word for all—or a commercial signature guarded by one.
