Madras High Court Rules 'Vapo' Term Cannot Be Monopolized by P&G
In a significant trademark ruling, the Madras High Court has firmly rejected three petitions filed by consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) that sought to establish exclusive rights over the abbreviation 'vapo'. The court declared that the term is merely a shortened form of 'vapor' and has become public property (publici juris), making it freely available for commercial use by all.
Court's Rationale on Descriptive Nature of 'Vapo'
Justice N Senthilkumar delivered the judgment while addressing P&G's opposition to trademarks granted to Telangana-based IPI India Private Limited for products named 'Vaporin Cold Rub' and 'Vaporin'. The court emphasized that 'vapo' is descriptive and common within the trade, particularly in products related to vapor rubs and similar items. "The term 'vapo' is publici juris and, as such, the use of the word 'vapo' in the IPI India mark will not render it deceptively similar to that of the petitioner's mark," Justice Senthilkumar stated.
Distinctiveness Between Vicks VapoRub and IPI India Products
The court meticulously compared P&G's well-known product 'Vicks VapoRub' with IPI India's offerings, which include 'Vapor In, Stress Out, Anytime, Anywhere', 'Vaporin Cold Rub', and 'Vaporin'. It concluded that these products are distinct and not similar or identical in any meaningful way. "The petitioner's product 'Vicks VapoRub' and the IPI India products are distinct and not similar or identical," the judge affirmed.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the phonetic and visual differences between the trademarks. It noted that 'Vicks VapoRub' and 'Vaporin' sound dissimilar and have completely different visual appearances, reducing any risk of consumer confusion. This analysis reinforced the court's stance that no exclusive rights can be claimed over abbreviations that have entered the public domain.
Legal Basis Under the Trademarks Act
In its ruling, the court referenced Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, which clarifies the scope of trademark protection. According to this provision, when a trademark comprises multiple elements, registration grants the proprietor exclusive rights to the trademark as a whole. However, if any part of the trademark is common to the trade or lacks distinctiveness, registration does not confer exclusive rights over that specific component.
Justice Senthilkumar elaborated, "When a trademark contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non-distinctive character, the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trademark so registered." This legal interpretation supported the court's conclusion that the rival marks are not deceptively similar, thereby dismissing P&G's claims.
Implications for Trademark Law in India
This judgment sets a precedent for future trademark disputes involving descriptive terms or abbreviations. It underscores the principle that terms which have become generic or widely used in a particular industry cannot be monopolized by a single entity. The ruling promotes fair competition by allowing multiple companies to use common descriptive elements in their branding, provided the overall trademarks are sufficiently distinct.
The case also highlights the importance of phonetic and visual analysis in trademark comparisons, ensuring that consumer perception is central to such legal evaluations. By affirming that 'vapo' is public property, the Madras High Court has reinforced the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering market diversity.
