The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in its oral judgment dated **February 12, 2026**, allowed the appeal FAO(COMM) 217/2025 filed by Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., setting aside the order of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 dismissing the appellants' application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in their pending suit for trademark infringement against Chacha Cloth House. The appellants, registered proprietors of the marks “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD” (word mark) and “CHACHE DI HATTI” (device mark), along with related marks like “CHACHA SUIT GALLERY”, since as early as 1988/2010/2013 in Classes 24 (textiles) and 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear), operate a single outlet in Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi, dealing in sarees, lehengas, suits, and similar garments. The respondent, operating in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, uses the unregistered mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” for identical goods, prompting the suit alleging infringement and passing off. The Commercial Court dismissed interim relief solely on the ground that “Chacha” (meaning uncle in Hindi) is a generic, commonplace expression incapable of monopolization.
The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla) reversed the impugned order, holding that distinctiveness of a mark must be evaluated in relation to the specific goods/services for which it is used, and not in the abstract or based on general etymological/commonplace meaning. The Court reasoned that while “Chacha” is an everyday Hindi word denoting uncle, it bears no natural, etymological, or descriptive connection to sarees, clothing, or textiles; thus, when used as a trademark in the garment trade, it functions as an arbitrary mark possessing inherent distinctiveness capable of distinguishing the appellants' goods from others. The Bench emphasized that commonplace words of ordinary language can acquire protectable distinctiveness in unrelated trade contexts, rejecting the Commercial Court's blanket view that no monopoly can exist over such terms. Given the appellants' prior registrations under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, long user, identical goods, territorial overlap in market perception (despite different physical locations), and prima facie likelihood of confusion/deception, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilted in favour of the registered proprietors. The Court accordingly granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from using “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” or any mark incorporating “CHACHA” or deceptively similar variants for textiles, clothing, or related goods pending suit disposal, subject to standard exceptions for honest concurrent use if established later.
This judgment settles a crucial principle in Indian trademark law regarding the registrability and protectability of common/ordinary words or household terms as trademarks. It reaffirms that distinctiveness under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the scope of infringement protection, must be assessed contextually vis-à-vis the goods/services claimed or used, not generically or etymologically; a word that is commonplace in language may be inherently distinctive and monopolizable when applied to goods with which it has no logical/descriptive association, thereby expanding protection for arbitrary adoption of everyday terms in unrelated trades (e.g., family/kinship terms like “Chacha” for apparel). It corrects the erroneous approach of denying interim relief merely because a word is “generic” in everyday parlance without examining trade-specific arbitrariness, reinforcing that registered marks enjoy statutory presumption of validity and prima facie exclusivity against identical/similar marks on identical goods.
**Case Details**
**Title**: Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Chacha Cloth House
**Date of Order**: February 12, 2026
**Case Number**: FAO(COMM) 217/2025 & CM APPL. 49543/2025
**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:1296-DB (indicative based on document reference 2026:DHC:1296-DB)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Hon'ble Judges**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
**Written By**: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
**Suggested Titles for the Article**
1. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in 'Chacha' Trademark Dispute: Holds Commonplace Word 'Chacha' Distinctive for Sarees & Garments
2. From Generic to Protectable: Division Bench Reverses Refusal of Injunction Against 'Chacha Cloth House' Use
3. Contextual Distinctiveness Principle Upheld: Delhi HC Protects 'CHACHA' Marks in Apparel Trade
4. 'Chacha' Not Generic for Clothing: High Court Restrains Unregistered Use in Trademark Infringement Appeal
**Suggested Tags**
Trademark Infringement, Interim Injunction, Distinctiveness of Marks, Commonplace Words as Trademarks, Arbitrary Marks, Section 23 Trade Marks Act, Delhi High Court FAO(COMM), Chacha Saree Bazar, Chacha Cloth House, Contextual Assessment of Distinctiveness, Apparel Trademark Dispute, Passing Off, IP Appeal
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court Division Bench allows FAO(COMM) 217/2025, sets aside Commercial Court's dismissal of interim injunction, restrains respondent from using “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” or similar marks pending suit, holding that distinctiveness must be assessed relative to specific goods (garments/textiles) and not abstractly; “Chacha”, though a commonplace Hindi term for uncle, is arbitrary and inherently distinctive when used for sarees/clothing with no etymological connection, entitling registered proprietor to prima facie protection against identical/similar use on identical goods.
======
The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in its oral judgment dated February 12, 2026, allowed the appeal FAO(COMM) 217/2025 filed by Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., setting aside the order of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 which had dismissed the appellants' application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in their pending suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against the respondent using the unregistered mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” for identical goods like sarees, lehengas, suits, and garments. The appellants hold prior registrations since 1988/2010/2013 for marks including “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD” (word) and “CHACHE DI HATTI” (device) in Classes 24 and 25, operating from a single outlet in Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi. The respondent operates in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, using “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” with labels/logos incorporating “CHACHA”.
The Commercial Court dismissed interim relief on the sole ground that “Chacha” (Hindi for uncle) is a generic/commonplace expression over which no monopoly can be claimed. The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla) reversed this, holding that distinctiveness must be assessed vis-à-vis the specific goods/services and not in the abstract or based on etymological meaning; while “Chacha” is an everyday word, it has no natural, descriptive, or etymological link to textiles/clothing/garments, rendering its use arbitrary and inherently distinctive in that trade context, capable of distinguishing the appellants' goods. Given prior registrations under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, long user, identical goods, market perception overlap, and prima facie confusion likelihood, the Court found balance of convenience and irreparable injury favouring the registered proprietors, granting interim injunction restraining the respondent from using “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” or any “CHACHA”-incorporating/deceptively similar marks for such goods pending suit, subject to exceptions if honest concurrent use is later proved.
- Distinctiveness of a trademark must be evaluated in relation to the specific goods or services for which it is used, not in the abstract or based on general/commonplace/etymological meaning; a commonplace everyday word (e.g., “Chacha” meaning uncle) can possess inherent distinctiveness and be protectable when applied to unrelated goods (e.g., sarees/garments) with no logical/descriptive connection (paras 2, principal reasoning section).
- Commonplace words of ordinary language, when arbitrarily adopted as marks in trades lacking etymological nexus, qualify for protection against infringement/passing off, entitling registered proprietors to prima facie interim restraint on identical/similar marks for identical goods where goodwill, prior registration, and confusion elements are established (paras 1-2, overarching view and application to facts).
**Case Title**: Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd.Vs Chacha Cloth House
**Order Date**: February 12, 2026
**Case Number**: FAO(COMM) 217/2025 & CM APPL. 49543/2025
**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:1296-DB
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
====
