CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE

Judgment text excerpt

$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 217/2025 & CM APPL. 49543/2025 CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD. & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Mr. Vibhor Sethi and Mr. Mankaran Singh, Advs. versus CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anukriti Pareek, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 12.02.2026 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, 19991 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 1 “the Act” hereinafter Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 217/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 32 KUMAR Signing Date:16.02.2026 20:07:05 under Order XXXIX of the CPC2 for interim injunction stands dismissed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-013 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