INTRODUCTION
VICKS VAPORUB, one of India’s most recognized medicinal brands, recently became the focal point of a significant trademark dispute before the Madras High Court. The case highlights the delicate balance trademark law maintains between protecting proprietary brand identity and preserving the public domain from monopolization of descriptive or generic terms.
Trademark law operates at the intersection of market regulation and property rights. While it grants brand owners exclusive rights over distinctive marks that identify the source of goods, it simultaneously prevents the appropriation of commonly used or descriptive expressions that competitors may legitimately require in trade. Conflict arises when proprietors of well-established marks attempt to claim exclusive rights not only over the composite mark as a whole but also over individual elements that may be descriptive or widely used in commerce.
This tension was central to The Procter & Gamble Company v. IPI India Pvt. Ltd., where Procter & Gamble (P&G), the owner of “VICKS VAPORUB,” sought rectification of the respondent’s trademarks “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB.” P&G argued that the shared prefix “Vapo” created a likelihood of consumer confusion and formed an integral part of its brand identity. However, the Madras High Court’s refusal to grant exclusivity over the term “Vapo” reaffirmed the doctrines of descriptiveness and publici juris under Indian trademark law. This article examines the factual background, statutory framework, judicial reasoning, and broader implications of the ruling.
BACKGROUND & FACTS
In the case before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) filed rectification petitions to revoke the trademark registrations “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB” held by IPI India Pvt. Ltd. P&G, the owner of the popular mark “VICKS VAPORUB,” argued that the prefix “Vapo” had become distinctive and an integral part of its brand identity due to decades of widespread use and goodwill. Under the Trade Marks Act of 1999, Sections 47 and 57, it was asserted that the respondent’s use of “VAPORIN” for identical vapor based medicinal treatments was misleadingly similar and likely to confuse consumers, therefore justifying the mark’s removal from the Register.
However, IPI India insisted that the term “Vapo” describes the nature and purpose of the product and is derived from the word “vapor.” Additionally, it showed that “Vapo” is used by several third-party brands in the pharmaceutical and medical industry, proving that the term is publici juris and cannot be used exclusively.
The Court reviewed whether P&G could monopolize the common prefix after looking at all of the rival marks. The Court rejected P&G’s claim over the name “Vapo,” only because it used by them as “Vaporub” stating that descriptive or generic elements are typically not granted exclusivity unless they can be demonstrated to have developed distinctiveness in isolation. As a result, the rectification petitions were denied, reinforcing the rule that popular descriptive terms are not protected by trademarks unless there is compelling proof of secondary meaning.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Hon’ble Madras High Court had to interpret the Trade Marks Act, 1999’s statutory framework in light of the disagreement, including the components that dealt with registrability and distinctiveness. In Section 9, unequivocal grounds for refusal are established, with the exception of descriptive or undifferentiated marks. Stopping traders from monopolizing terms that define the nature, quality, or intended use of commodities is the goal of the legislation. But if a descriptive mark has been used consistently for a long time and has come to designate a single commercial source, the proviso to Section 9 recognizes the idea of acquired uniqueness and allows protection.
The case also involved Section 11, which deals with relative grounds for rejection in cases where a mark is confusingly similar to an earlier registered mark. According to Indian trademark law, marks must be compared holistically and evaluated from the perspective of a customer with average intelligence and faulty memory. Unless those aspects have independently gained distinctiveness, courts have often warned against breaking down composite marks to separate and appropriate individual elements. As a result, P&G’s attempt to claim exclusivity over “Vapo,” which was taken from “VICKS VAPORUB,” had to be challenged against the well-established rule that likeness must be assessed comprehensively rather than separately.
The petitions were submitted in accordance with Sections 47 and 57, which carry a presumption of legality in favor of the registered proprietor, in order to correct the register. The petitioner bears the primary responsibility in rectification proceedings to prove that the contested registration was made incorrectly or is still on the register. The Act protects goodwill and avoids consumer confusion, but it also maintains descriptive and widely used terms as publici juris. This statutory framework mirrors a larger conceptual balance in trademark law. Thus, upholding this balance between the public interest in free and fair competition and private rights became the focus of the Court’s analysis.
REASONING & ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Madras High Court initially looked into the meaning of the prefix “Vapo” used in “Vaporub.” According to the ruling, the phrase is a direct description of the functional feature of vapor based pharmaceuticals and is an acronym for “Vapor.” It is therefore inherently undifferentiable. Additionally, evidence of extensive third-party use showed that “Vapo” is widely used in the industry and is covered by publici juris.
The established rule that trademarks should be compared holistically was restated by the Court. Unless an element is the major distinguishing trait, dissection to separate common elements is prohibited. The distinct and source identifying aspect of “VICKS VAPORUB” is “VICKS” and not “VAPORUB.” Fortunately, “VAPORIN” isn’t the exact same as P&G’s mark in terms of structure, phonetics, and appearance. The trade dress, packaging, general commercial impression, and suffix “-rin” were all unique.
The Court determined that an average consumer would not associate P&G’s product with “VAPORIN” after applying the likelihood of confusion test. P&G’s claim failed due to the lack of proof that the word “Vapo” had an independent secondary meaning. The Court also noted long standing cohabitation and third-party usage, finding insufficient proof of dishonest adoption.
The logic is consistent with well-known Supreme Court rulings that warn against giving monopolies over descriptive or popular terms, such as Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, and Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.
DECISION & CONCLUSION
The Madras High Court rejected the rectification requests by P&G filed by them on the basis of their mark “VICKS VAPORUB” and declined to revoke IPI India’s “VAPORIN” and “VAPORIN COLD RUB” registrations. The Hon’ble Court determined that, absent strong proof of acquired distinctiveness, the prefix “Vapo” is descriptive, common to trade, and not subject to exclusive appropriation.
The Hon’ble court’s decision upholds three basic principles of trademark law: inclusive rights apply to composite marks as a whole, not to common fragments; descriptive elements remain publici juris unless proven distinctive; and likelihood of confusion must be evaluated holistically from the viewpoint of the typical consumer.
The decision prohibits the overexpansion of trademark monopolies in India and sets a significant precedent. The ruling preserves competitive freedom while upholding doctrinal coherence by keeping descriptive language in the public domain. The judgment ultimately confirms that distinctiveness, not the word itself, is protected by trademark law.
Read our latest article: PARLE PRODUCTS (P) LTD VS J. P. & CO. – J.P. Associates
Author: Kartikey Saxena, 5th Year Law Student, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Gwalior.
REFERENCES
- High Court’s Order https://images.assettype.com/barandbench-hindi/2026-01-28/b8xj08zc/Vicks_Order.pdf
- Article https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/01/30/madras-hc-rejects-vicks-vaporub-deceptive-similarity-vaporin/
- Article https://www.legaleraonline.com/from-the-courts/no-monopoly-over-vapo-madras-high-court-rejects-pgs-bid-to-block-vaporin-trademarks-978376