Common Word ‘CHACHA’ Has No Nexus With Sarees Or Garments; Distinctiveness In Trademark Cannot Be Assessed In Abstract: Delhi HC
Use of identical dominant element “CHACHA” for similar apparel held likely to cause confusion
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the expression “CHACHA”, though a common vernacular word meaning “uncle”, cannot be treated as generic when used for garments such as sarees and apparel. Accordingly, while setting aside the Commercial Court’s refusal to grant interim relief, the Division Bench restored protection in favour of the registered proprietor of the marks “CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT LTD” and “CHACHE DI HATTI” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Bench clarified that distinctiveness must be assessed in relation to the goods or services for which the mark is used, and not in the abstract. A word may be common in everyday speech, yet entirely arbitrary and distinctive when used for unrelated goods.
A Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, ‘CHACHA’, though otherwise a word of common usage, has clearly no connection with sarees or garments. There is no basis, therefore, for a Court to hold that, when used for in connection with the sarees or garments, the word CHACHA is not distinctive”.
“…In fact, ordinarily, an aspect of whether a mark is distinctive is lacking or is not lacking in distinctiveness in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is used, would be a matter of evidence and, therefore, a matter of trial, unlike an aspect of deceptive similarity, which has to abstract be decided by the Court on its own perception. There is no material cited by the learned Commercial Court to support its finding that the word CHACHA is lacking in distinctiveness when used for sarees and apparel. Nor has Ms. Pareek, either in her oral submissions or in her written arguments, been able to adduce any contention which could convince us, even prima facie, that the expression CHACHA is to be treated as not distinctive when used for sarees and garments. Her only submission is that ‘Chacha’ is a vernacular word of common usage, which means ‘uncle’”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Rishi Bansal appeared for the appellant and Advocate Anukriti Pareek appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of multiple word and device marks in Classes 24 and 25, sued Chacha Cloth House, which was operating in Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, for using the mark “CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE” in relation to identical goods, sarees, suits, lehengas and garments.
While the Commercial Court vacated the ex parte injunction on the ground that “Chacha” is a generic and commonplace expression over which no monopoly could be claimed, the Division Bench found this reasoning legally flawed.
The Court relied on the statutory presumption under Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that registration is prima facie evidence of validity. Since Section 9(1)(a) bars registration of marks lacking distinctiveness, a registered mark is, at the interlocutory stage, entitled to be presumed distinctive unless exceptional circumstances are shown. However, in the matter, no such material was produced to displace this presumption.
On the issue of comparison of rival marks, the Court reiterated the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature doctrine, as explained in the judgment in Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701. While composite marks must be assessed as a whole, courts may identify the dominant element that shapes consumer recall. In the present case, both marks prominently featured the identical dominant expression “CHACHA,” while the remaining words—“SAREE BAZAR” and “CLOTH HOUSE”, were descriptive of the trade.
“…even though the individual logos used by the appellant and the respondent may visually be dissimilar, the main feature of the two logos are, in the case of the appellant, the words CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD. and, in the case of the respondent, the words CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE. As CHACHA CLOTH HOUSE clearly infringes CHACHA SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD., the visual dissimilarity between the logos cannot come to the aid of the respondent”, the bench further observed.
Applying the test of an average consumer of imperfect recollection, the Bench held that use of the identical dominant element for identical goods prima facie created a likelihood of confusion or association within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Act. The absence of territorial overlap between Delhi and Yamuna Nagar was held immaterial in an infringement action, particularly where business expansion is always possible.
Cause Title: Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Chacha Cloth House [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1296-DB]
Appearances:
Appellants: Rishi Bansal, Rishabh Gupta, Shruti Manchanda, Vibhor Sethi and Mankaran Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Anukriti Pareek, Advocates.