{"id":14800,"date":"2026-01-26T07:31:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-26T07:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=14800"},"modified":"2026-01-26T07:44:58","modified_gmt":"2026-01-26T07:44:58","slug":"protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting Formative Trademarks: Analysis of Vaporub vs Vaporin dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute between The Procter &amp; Gamble Company, a global giant in consumer goods, and IPI India Private Limited, a local player in similar product categories, exemplifies this tension. This case revolves around the petitioner&#8217;s established brands &#8220;VICKS&#8221; and &#8220;VAPORUB,&#8221; which have become synonymous with relief from cold and respiratory ailments, and the respondent&#8217;s marks &#8220;VAPORIN&#8221; and related variants, which the petitioner argued were crafted to ride on the goodwill of their iconic products.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Key_Trademark_Registration_Details\" >Key Trademark Registration Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\" >Reasoning and Decision of Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Comparison_of_the_Marks\" >Comparison of the Marks<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Nature_of_Goods_and_Trade_Channels\" >Nature of Goods and Trade Channels<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Distinctiveness_and_Bad_Faith\" >Distinctiveness and Bad Faith<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Role_of_the_House_Mark\" >Role of the House Mark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Statutory_Provisions_Relied_Upon\" >Statutory Provisions Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Prior_User_Rights_and_Judicial_Precedents\" >Prior User Rights and Judicial Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Final_Outcome\" >Final Outcome<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/protecting-formative-trademarks-analysis-of-vaporub-vs-vaporin-dispute\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>Filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the petitions sought rectification of the trademark register by removing the respondent&#8217;s registrations, asserting that the impugned marks were deceptively similar in phonetics, visuals, structure, and concept, leading to potential confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Madras High Court&#8217;s adjudication in this matter not only underscores the principles of trademark law in India but also reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against dishonest adoption. By examining the historical use, registration details, and market presence of both parties, the court delved into whether the respondent&#8217;s marks crossed the threshold of permissible similarity, ultimately weighing factors like consumer perception, trade channels, and the overall impression created by the marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This analytical article dissects the judgment, providing insights into how courts apply the anti-dissection rule, the test of imperfect recollection, and the concept of house marks in resolving such conflicts, offering valuable lessons for trademark practitioners and businesses alike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Procter &amp; Gamble Company, founded in 1837 and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, stands as one of the world&#8217;s leading multinational corporations in the manufacture and trade of health care, personal care, and hygiene products. Among its portfolio, the brand &#8220;VICKS&#8221; holds a flagship position, particularly for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations aimed at alleviating cold, cough, and respiratory issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Launched internationally in 1890 and introduced to the Indian market in 1964, &#8220;VICKS&#8221; has cultivated immense recognition and loyalty among consumers and the trade. Complementing this, the company has developed a family of marks under the &#8220;VAPO&#8221; formative prefix, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>VICKS VAPORUB<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS VAPOCOOL<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS VAPOPATCH<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS VAPOEASE<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS VAPAPADS<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS COUGH DROPS<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>VICKS INHALER<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These products, especially &#8220;VAPORUB,&#8221; have garnered tremendous goodwill through extensive marketing, sales, and consistent quality, becoming household names associated with instant relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner&#8217;s trademarks &#8220;VICKS&#8221; and &#8220;VAPORUB&#8221; were registered globally as early as 1928, with Indian registrations dating back to 1954 for &#8220;VICKS&#8221; in Class 5 and 1977 for &#8220;VAPORUB&#8221; in the same class. Additional registrations include device marks and labels from 2007 and 2008, alongside copyrights in the distinctive packaging artistry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts across India have repeatedly acknowledged and protected these marks, affirming their well-known status. In contrast, IPI India Private Limited, based in Telangana, India, entered the market with products under marks like &#8220;VAPORIN COLD RUB&#8221; and &#8220;VAPORIN,&#8221; promoted with slogans such as &#8220;Vapor In, Stress Out. Anytime, Anywhere.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These products targeted similar categories\u2014personal care and medicinal preparations in Classes 3 and 5\u2014leading the petitioner to discover their existence and perceive them as imitations designed to capitalize on established reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"registration-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Trademark_Registration_Details\"><\/span>Key Trademark Registration Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Party<\/th><th>Trademark<\/th><th>Class<\/th><th>Registration Year \/ Number<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>The Procter &amp; Gamble Company<\/td><td>VICKS<\/td><td>Class 5<\/td><td>1954 (India)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>The Procter &amp; Gamble Company<\/td><td>VAPORUB<\/td><td>Class 5<\/td><td>1977 (India)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>IPI India Private Limited<\/td><td>VAPORIN<\/td><td>Class 3<\/td><td>No. 3897775 \/ No. 3461733<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>IPI India Private Limited<\/td><td>VAPORIN COLD RUB<\/td><td>Class 5<\/td><td>No. 4285435<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Upon learning of the respondent&#8217;s registrations (No. 3897775 in Class 3, No. 4285435 in Class 5, and No. 3461733 in Class 3), the petitioner issued a cease and desist notice on September 27, 2022, alleging deceptive similarity and dishonest intent, which prompted the filing of rectification petitions to expunge these entries from the trademark register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The proceedings commenced with the filing of three original petitions under Sections 47 (removal for non-use), 57 (rectification or variation of register), and 125 all in the name of the first respondent, IPI India Private Limited, with the Registrar of Trade Marks as the second respondent. The petitions were consolidated for a common hearing given the overlapping issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner argued prior registration, deceptive similarity, and dishonest adoption, citing extensive evidence of their marks&#8217; global and Indian presence, sales figures, and judicial recognitions. The first respondent countered by claiming that &#8220;VAPO&#8221; was descriptive and common to trade, thus not monopolizable, and that their marks were distinct enough to avoid confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-decision-of-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Decision of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Madras High Court&#8217;s central reasoning was the test for deceptive similarity under Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, which deems marks similar if they are likely to cause confusion. The court rejected the respondent&#8217;s plea to dissect the marks, invoking the anti-dissection rule from precedents like Amritdhara Pharmacy, where the Supreme Court held that marks must be compared as wholes, considering phonetic, visual, structural, and conceptual resemblances from the viewpoint of a person of average intelligence with imperfect recollection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-of-marks\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_of_the_Marks\"><\/span>Comparison of the Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Phonetic similarity:<\/strong> &#8220;VAPORUB&#8221; and &#8220;VAPORIN&#8221; were found phonetically akin, with the shared &#8220;VAPOR&#8221; prefix dominating the impression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Suffix analysis:<\/strong> The suffixes &#8220;UB&#8221; and &#8220;IN&#8221; were insufficient to differentiate, especially in spoken trade where pronunciation overlaps.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Visual and structural similarity:<\/strong> The marks&#8217; composition mirrored each other, heightening confusion risks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"nature-of-goods-and-trade-channels\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Nature_of_Goods_and_Trade_Channels\"><\/span>Nature of Goods and Trade Channels<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court noted the identical goods\u2014cold rubs and medicinal preparations\u2014sold through overlapping channels to the same consumer base, amplifying the likelihood of deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"distinctiveness-and-bad-faith\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinctiveness_and_Bad_Faith\"><\/span>Distinctiveness and Bad Faith<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Dismissing the respondent&#8217;s argument that &#8220;VAPO&#8221; is descriptive (evoking vapor for ointments), the court observed that the petitioner&#8217;s long use had rendered it distinctive, and the respondent&#8217;s adoption of a similar formative element betrayed dishonest intent to freeride on goodwill, as evidenced by similar packaging, colors, and layouts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-house-mark\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Role_of_the_House_Mark\"><\/span>Role of the House Mark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The house mark &#8220;VICKS&#8221; was recognized as a common identifier, making &#8220;VAPORUB&#8221; the key differentiator, which the respondent&#8217;s marks encroached upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutory-provisions-relied-upon\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Provisions_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Statutory Provisions Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Provision<\/th><th>Application by the Court<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 9<\/td><td>Absolute grounds for refusal (lack of distinctiveness, potential for confusion)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 11<\/td><td>Relative grounds (similarity to earlier marks)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 34<\/td><td>Prior user rights upheld<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Relying on Section 9&#8217;s absolute grounds for refusal (lack of distinctiveness, potential for confusion) and Section 11&#8217;s relative grounds (similarity to earlier marks), the court found the registrations violative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"prior-user-rights-and-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Prior_User_Rights_and_Judicial_Precedents\"><\/span>Prior User Rights and Judicial Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Prior user rights under Section 34 were upheld for the petitioner, given their 1964 Indian launch versus the respondent&#8217;s later entry. Judicial precedents, including Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., reinforced that initial interest confusion could harm reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-outcome\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Outcome\"><\/span>Final Outcome<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The court allowed all three petitions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar was directed to remove the impugned registrations from the register.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Costs were awarded to the petitioner.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Ultimately, the court allowed all three petitions, directing the Registrar to remove the impugned registrations from the register and awarding costs to the petitioner, emphasizing that trademark law safeguards consumer interests and prevents unjust enrichment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment solidifies the application of the deceptive similarity test in cases involving formative marks, clarifying that prefixes like &#8220;VAPO,&#8221; when acquired distinctiveness through prolonged use and market dominance, cannot be appropriated even if arguably descriptive, as such adoption evidences bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It reiterates that trademarks must be assessed holistically, without dissection, from the lens of an ordinary consumer&#8217;s imperfect recollection, and that similarity extends beyond words to trade dress and packaging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision underscores the primacy of prior user rights and the well-known status of marks, as per Section 2(1)(zg), in rectification proceedings, establishing that house marks do not dilute the independent protection of sub-brands within a family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, it affirms that registrations granted in error, causing confusion or deceiving the public, warrant expungement under Sections 47 and 57, prioritizing public interest over registrant&#8217;s claims of commonality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This precedent serves as a deterrent against parasitic branding, particularly in pharmaceutical sectors where consumer health and trust are paramount, and highlights the courts&#8217; role in maintaining the integrity of the trademark register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>The Procter &amp; Gamble Company Vs. IPI India Private Limited &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>January 6, 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>O.P.(TM)Nos.48, 49 and 50 of 2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/th><td>Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer: <\/strong>Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The dispute between The Procter &amp; Gamble Company, a global giant in consumer goods, and IPI India Private Limited, a local player in similar product categories, exemplifies this tension. This case revolves around the petitioner&#8217;s established brands &#8220;VICKS&#8221; and &#8220;VAPORUB,&#8221; which have become synonymous with relief from cold and respiratory ailments, and the respondent&#8217;s<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14800","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14800","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}