Procter & Gamble's attempt to claim exclusivity over 'VAPO' formative marks dismissed; 'VAPORIN' deemed distinct
In a landmark decision, the Madras High Court has dismissed petitions filed by Procter & Gamble Company seeking to remove trademark registrations held by IPI India Private Limited for products with 'VAPO' formative marks. The court held that the term 'VAPO' is descriptive, common to trade, and publici juris, affirming that the presence of 'VAPO' does not render trademarks deceptively similar.
The judgment came in response to petitions filed by Procter & Gamble, a renowned multinational corporation, which claimed that IPI India's trademarks such as "VAPORIN," "VAPORIN COLD RUB," and "Vapor In, Stress Out. Anytime, Anywhere," were deceptively similar to its own "VICKS VAPORUB."
Justice N. Senthilkumar, presiding over the case, emphasized that the comparison of trademarks must consider the overall impression from the perspective of an average person with ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. The court noted that the phonetic and visual dissimilarity between the trademarks negates the likelihood of confusion, thus protecting the respondent's rights to continue using their registered trademarks.
The court further clarified that registration of a trademark confers exclusive rights only to the use of the trademark as a whole. It cannot confer exclusivity over descriptive terms or non-distinctive parts of the trademark. The term "VAPO," being descriptive and common to trade, does not give Procter & Gamble exclusive rights over it.
The judgment also referenced several precedents, including Supreme Court rulings and decisions from other High Courts, reinforcing the view that descriptive terms which are publici juris cannot be monopolized by any one party. It was highlighted that both phonetic and visual tests must be applied to determine the likelihood of confusion, considering imperfect recollection and pronunciation.
IPI India, represented by counsel Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy, argued successfully that their trademarks are distinct, emphasizing unique structural and phonetic characteristics that differentiate them from Procter & Gamble's marks. The counsel further demonstrated that the term 'VAPO' is widely used across the industry, with numerous products beginning with 'VAPO' being marketed globally.
This decision is seen as a significant affirmation of trademark principles regarding descriptive terms and publici juris, ensuring fair competition and preventing unjust monopolization of common trade elements.
Bottom Line:
Trade Mark Law - The term "VAPO" is publici juris and cannot be exclusively claimed by any party as a trademark. Comparison of trademarks must consider the overall impression from the perspective of an average person with ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 9, 10, 17, 34
Procter @ Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844823
