IP Case Law › Trade Marks › The Procter & Gamble Company v. IPI India Private Limited & …
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Sections 47 and 57, Trade Marks Act, 1999
Brief facts
Procter & Gamble, owner of VICKS VAPORUB, sought cancellation of the respondent's registrations of VAPORIN.
Issues before the Court
Whether VAPORIN is deceptively similar to VICKS VAPORUB so as to warrant cancellation.
Court's findings
VICKS VAPORUB and VAPORIN are phonetically dissimilar and their visual appearance is completely different, so there would be no confusion in the minds of users.
Decision
Cancellation petitions dismissed.
Key legal principle / ratio
A registration will not be cancelled where the rival marks, compared as wholes, are phonetically and visually dissimilar, even if they share a descriptive element.
Important paragraph references
Concluding paragraphs.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Cancellation Refused Phonetic Dissimilarity Rectification VAPORIN VICKS VAPORUB
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order