- More
- Back
Madras High Court Rejects P&G’s Challenge to “VAPORIN” Trademarks; Holds “Vapo” to Be Publici Juris February 12, 2026
Published in: Alerts
DISCLAIMER: The material contained in this publication is solely for information and general guidance and not for advertising or soliciting. The information provided does not constitute professional advice that may be required before acting on any matter. While every care has been taken in the preparation of this publication to ensure its accuracy, Vaish Associates Advocates neither assumes responsibility for any errors, which despite all precautions, may be found herein nor accepts any liability, and disclaims all responsibility, for any kind of loss or damage arising on account of anyone acting / refraining to act by placing reliance upon the information contained in this publication.
In The Procter and Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited (O.P.(TM) Nos. 48, 49 and 50 of 2024), the Madras High Court dismissed trademark rectification petitions filed by P&G, holding that the term “Vapo” is descriptive, common to the trade, and publici juris, and therefore incapable of exclusive appropriation.
The Court found that “Vapo”, derived from “vapour”, is widely used in relation to vapour-based medicinal products and has seen extensive third-party adoption. It further held that “VICKS VAPORUB” and “VAPORIN” are phonetically, visually, and structurally distinct, with differing trade dress and overall commercial impression, making the likelihood of consumer confusion remote.
For any clarification, please write to [email protected]
