P&G Scores Partial Win: Madras HC Halts 'VAPO' Public Domain Tag in Vicks Rival Clash

In a swift move on February 17, 2026, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu granted partial relief to global giant The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) . The court stayed specific observations from a single judge's order declaring the term 'VAPO' as publici juris —a legal concept meaning common to the public and ineligible for exclusive trademark protection. This comes amid P&G's appeals challenging rulings in trademark rectification petitions involving its iconic Vicks VapoRub and rival Vaporin marks by IPI India Pvt Ltd .

From VapoRub to Vaporin: The Simmering IP Battle

P&G, the maker of the medicated balm Vicks VapoRub , filed appeals (LPA Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of 2026) against a single judge's common order dated January 6, 2026, in OP(TM) Nos. 48, 49 & 50 of 2024. These stemmed from proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks in Chennai, where P&G sought to rectify or oppose IPI India's registered marks resembling "Vaporin" with the element 'VAPO' .

The dispute highlights tensions over descriptive terms in pharmaceuticals. P&G argued the single judge erred in Para 26 by labeling 'VAPO' as publici juris , potentially weakening protections for its established Vicks branding. IPI India, based in Telangana, defended its registered mark, entering appearance via caveat. As reported in legal circles, this pits Vicks against Vaporin in a classic case of alleged phonetic and visual similarity.

Appellant's Pushback vs Respondent's Defense

P&G , represented by Senior Counsel P.S. Raman (for Abishek Jenasenan ), urged the Division Bench to set aside the single judge's orders entirely. They contested the reasoning that 'VAPO' —evocative of vapor—belongs to the public domain, arguing it dilutes proprietary rights built over decades.

On the other side, Ramesh Ganapathy for IPI India emphasized the validity of their registration. No broader injunction was sought or granted against IPI's use, focusing the appeals narrowly on the single judge's observations.

Bench Draws a Precise Line: Stay on Reasoning, Not Rights

The Division Bench zeroed in on procedural clarity rather than merits. It explicitly preserved IPI's rights while isolating the contested finding for review. No precedents were cited in this interim order, but the ruling invokes core trademark principles distinguishing proprietary marks from generic descriptors.

The court clarified: > "We make it clear that there is no injunction against the 1st respondent from using their registered mark. The only issue is with regard to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.26 of the common order..."

This nuanced approach signals deeper scrutiny ahead, without disrupting market status quo.

Key Observations - > "The observations of the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.26 of the common order now under appeal requires further examination. To that extent, the observations made in Paragraph No.26 alone are stayed, particularly with respect to the observation that the word ’VAPO’ is publici juris." - > "Counter to be filed by 06.03.2026. Call the matter on 06.03.2026."

What Happens Next—and Why It Matters

P&G's appeals advance to March 6, 2026, with IPI directed to file counters. IPI continues using its mark unimpeded, averting immediate business disruption.

This interim stay underscores judicial caution in IP matters: courts won't rubber-stamp publici juris labels without full hearings, especially for terms bordering descriptiveness and brand equity. For pharma brands, it reinforces that challenging rivals' registrations demands rigorous evidence of secondary meaning. Future cases may cite this for balancing registry decisions against appeal rights, shaping how "VAPO"-like elements fare in India's crowded balm market.