Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Chacha Cloth House – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 217 of 2025 & CM APPL. 49543 of 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants claim infringement of trademark. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. respondent argues 'chacha' is generic. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. commercial court's initial ruling on trademark. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. appellants dispute generics ruling. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. respondent defends 'chacha' as common. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. court supports injunction principle. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. court establishes prima facie infringement. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. injunction to follow due to infringement. (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
The lis
1. The appellant is the registered proprietor of the marks CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD and CHACHE DI HATTI, both as word and device marks, under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, ["the Act” hereinafter] for textiles, clothing and garments such as sarees, lehengas, and like goods. The respondent, without any registration, is using the mark CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE for trading in identical goods. The appellant sued the respondent alleging infringement of its registered trade marks. The suit is pending. An application, by the appellant under Order XXXIX of the CPC, [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] for interim injunction stands dismissed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, [the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter] on the ground that “Chacha” is a generic and commonplace expression, over which no one can claim a monopoly. The appellant is in appeal.
Our view
2. To our mind, the learned Commercial Court is in error on principle. The aspect of whether a mark possesses, or lacks, distinctiveness, has to be assessed vis-à-vis the goods or services in respect of which the mark is used, and not in the abstract. A commonplace word of everyday usage may be distinctive when used as a mark for goods with which it has no etymological connection. Viewed thus, we are of the view that “CHACHA” cannot be said to lack in distinctiveness, when used for selling sarees and other like garments.
Rival Stands before the learned Commercial Court
I. The case of the appellant before the learned Commercial Court
3. The appellant is the proprietor of several registrations, under Section 23 of the Act, including, inter alia the following:
| S. No. | Trademark | Class | Date of application | Goods/ Services |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD (word mark) | 24 | 14 January 2013 | Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes, bed and table covers, sarees |
| 2 | CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD (word mark) | 25 | 14 January 2013 | Clothing, footwear, headgear |
| 3 | CHACHE DI HATTI (Device) | 24 | 16 December 1988 | Suiting, shirting, & sarees |
| 4 | CHACHE DI HATTI (Device) | 25 | 6 January 2010 | Clothing |
| 5 | CHACHA SUIT GALLERY | 25 | 1 June 2010 | Clothing, footwear, headgear |
| 6 | CHACHA SUIT GALLERY | 24 | 1 June 2010 | Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers |
4. The appellant has only one outlet, at Shops No. 8 and 9, Sarojni Nagar Market, New Delhi-110023.
5. The respondent runs an outlet at Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. The nature of business conducted by the appellant and respondent is the same, i.e., trading and marketing in garments such as suits, sarees, lehengas and like goods. The respondent was using the marks labels/logos
and 
.6. Though the respondent has applied for registration of certain marks, it is undisputed that, as on date, the respondent does not possess any trade mark registered under Section 23 of the Act.
7. The appellant, in its suit, alleged that the respondent’s marks CHACHA, CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE and labels/logos
infringed the appellant’s registered trade mark CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD and CHACHE DI HATTI and that the simultaneous use of these marks resutled in likelihood of confusion among consumers.
and 
, for any goods which may be identical or similar to the goods of which appellant’s mark is regsitered.II. Case
Distinctiveness in trademark law must be assessed concerning the goods or services; common terms can acquire distinctiveness based on usage, thus allowing for a prima facie case of infringement.
Trademarks that are descriptive, like 'Pe' in 'PhonePe', cannot claim exclusivity; parties may not dissect marks but can analyze dominant features for likelihood of confusion.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
