{"id":376867,"date":"2026-02-26T13:00:37","date_gmt":"2026-02-26T07:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=376867"},"modified":"2026-03-05T10:46:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T05:16:10","slug":"delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark &#8220;Chacha&#8221; distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Disclaimer:<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal against the Commercial Court&#8217;s order refusing to grant interim injunction in a trade mark infringement suit on the ground that the expression &#8220;Chacha&#8221; is a generic and commonplace word over which no monopoly could be claimed, the Division Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">C. Hari Shankar*<\/span> and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., held that the Commercial Court erred in treating the expression &#8220;Chacha&#8221; as generic, set aside the impugned order and restrained the use of the impugned mark pending trial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court reiterated that distinctiveness must be examined in relation to the goods for which the mark is used and held that use of Chacha CLOTH HOUSE for garments prima facie infringed the registered trade marks Chacha SAREE BAZAR PVT. LTD. and allied marks.<\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellants are registered proprietors of several trade marks, including Chacha Saree Bazar Pvt. Ltd. <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/13_Chacha-CLOTH-HOUSE-1.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"267\" height=\"200\"\/>, Chache Di Hatti, and Chacha Suit Gallery, registered under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563665\" target=\"_blank\">23<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\">Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (the Act), in respect of textiles, garments and allied goods falling in Classes 24 and 25. The respondent, admittedly not possessing any registered trade mark, commenced business under the mark Chacha Cloth House as <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/13_Chacha-CLOTH-HOUSE-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"97\" height=\"90\"\/> and <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/13_Chacha-CLOTH-HOUSE-3.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"85\"\/>, dealing in identical goods.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioner alleged infringement and likelihood of confusion and instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction and consequential relief. An ex parte ad interim injunction was initially granted. However, the Commercial Court subsequently vacated the injunction, holding that the word &#8220;Chacha&#8221;, being a common vernacular expression meaning &#8220;uncle&#8221;, was generic and incapable of monopoly unless a secondary meaning was established. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants preferred the present appeal.<\/p>\n<h3>Issues:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Whether the expression &#8220;Chacha&#8221; lacked distinctiveness to disentitle trade mark protection, and whether the respondent&#8217;s mark constituted prima facie infringement under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563671\" target=\"_blank\">29<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\">Trade Marks Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n<h3>Analysis<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">At the outset, the Court noted the settled principles governing trade mark infringement and interim injunctions. The Court relied upon <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Sudhir Bhatia<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/XNY7XeDc\">(2004) 3 SCC 90<\/a>, wherein it was noted that, in cases of infringement, an injunction ordinarily follows once infringement is prima facie established, and mere delay cannot defeat relief.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thereafter, the Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563670\" target=\"_blank\">28<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563671\" target=\"_blank\">29<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\">Trade Marks Act<\/a> to emphasise that registration confers an exclusive statutory right and enables the registered proprietor to seek relief against infringing use. The Court reiterated that infringement under Section 29(2)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">b<\/span>) arises where a deceptively similar mark is used in relation to identical or similar goods, resulting in a likelihood of confusion or association in the mind of the public.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Amritdhara Pharmacy<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Satya Deo Gupta<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/N091RC8t\">1962 SCC OnLine SC 13<\/a> and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Satyam Infoway Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/lx8IEURp\">(2004) 6 SCC 145<\/a>, to explain the &#8221;likelihood of confusion&#8221;. The Court noted that similarity must be assessed from the standpoint of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The Court further emphasised that marks are not to be compared side-by-side with microscopic scrutiny but by examining the overall commercial impression.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;What has to be seen is whether, when the average consumer initially sees the defendant&#8217;s mark, having come across the plaintiff&#8217;s mark at an earlier point of time, the first impression on the psyche of such a consumer would be of confusion or association. The fact that, later, this impression might be dispelled, does not mitigate the aspect of infringement.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further examined Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563658\" target=\"_blank\">17<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\">Trade Marks Act<\/a>. The Court referred to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">South India Beverages (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">General Mills Marketing Inc.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/H2803lTL\">2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953<\/a>, and <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Stiefel Laboratories<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ajanta Pharma Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/8dkTS04z\">2014 SCC OnLine Del 3405<\/a>, wherein the Court held that although the anti-dissection rule mandates comparison of marks as a whole, identification of a dominant or essential feature remains permissible as an analytical tool. The Court also relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/DytPh4kf\">1964 SCC OnLine SC 14<\/a>, and the Supreme Court&#8217;s reasoning in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/I6yVtiQ7\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701<\/a>, to clarify that the dominant feature doctrine complements rather than contradicts the anti-dissection rule.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Applying these precedents and principles to the present case, the Court observed that the dominant feature of both rival marks was the expression &#8220;Chacha&#8221;, while the remaining words merely described the nature of business or goods. Consequently, an average consumer encountering the marks would primarily recollect the dominant element, thereby giving rise to the likelihood of association.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Addressing the central reasoning adopted by the Commercial Court that word &#8220;Chacha&#8221; was generic, the Court differed from this approach and held that distinctiveness cannot be examined in abstraction but must be evaluated vis-&agrave;-vis the goods concerned. A word of common parlance may nonetheless be distinctive when used in relation to goods with which it bears no conceptual or etymological connection. Since the word &#8220;Chacha&#8221; had no inherent connection with sarees or garments, there existed no basis to treat it as lacking distinctiveness.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;Distinctiveness, by its very nature, has to be examined vis-v-vis the goods or services in respect of which the mark is used. An everyday expression of common parlance, which would ordinarily be &#8220;generic&#8221;, may be distinctive when used in respect of goods or services with which it has no connection whatsoever.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court further observed that Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001563674\" target=\"_blank\">31(1)<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002776236\" target=\"_blank\">Trade Marks Act<\/a> statutorily renders registration prima facie evidence of validity, which necessarily includes prima facie distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">a<\/span>). Therefore, at the interlocutory stage, the Commercial Court could not disregard the statutory presumption of validity without compelling material.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Pankaj Goel<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Dabur India Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/JZtey2LM\">2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744<\/a>, while addressing the argument that the expression was &#8220;common to trade&#8221;. It held that the mere existence of similar marks is insufficient and that the defendant must establish substantial commercial use affecting the plaintiff&#8217;s distinctiveness. The Court observed that no evidence regarding market presence, turnover, or extent of use was produced by the respondent, and hence the defence failed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Furthermore, the plea based on dissimilarity of logos was rejected with reference <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">to K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Shri Ambal &amp; Co.<\/span>, (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/851vtY5X\">1969) 2 SCC 131<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court held that even visually distinct labels may infringe where the dominant textual feature is phonetically similar. The Court observed that the prominent textual component of both parties&#8217; marks was identical, and visual differences could not neutralise infringement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Cumulatively, the Court concluded that the respondent&#8217;s adoption of Chacha Cloth House for identical goods constituted prima facie infringement within the meaning of Section 29(2)(<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">b<\/span>). The Commercial Court was found to have proceeded on erroneous legal premises, thereby inviting appellate interference in terms of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Wander Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Antox India (P) Ltd.<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/C9QC1AGr\">1990 Supp SCC 727<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order to the extent it restricts the respondent from using the marks presently in use by them and restrained the respondent from using the marks <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/13_Chacha-CLOTH-HOUSE-4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"97\" height=\"90\" \/> and <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/13_Chacha-CLOTH-HOUSE-5.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"150\" height=\"85\"\/> for any goods or services covered by Classes 24, 25 or 35, or any allied or cognate goods or services, pending disposal of the suit.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Chacha Saree Bazar (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Chacha Cloth House<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9IyG322d\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2026 SCC OnLine Del 761<\/a>, decided on 12-2-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment authored by Justice C. Hari Shankar.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Petitioner:<\/span> Rishi Bansal, Rishabh Gupta, Shruti Manchanda, Vibhor Sethi, Mankaran Singh, Advocates.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Respondent:<\/span> Anukriti Pareek, Advocate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;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 in connection with the sarees or garments, the word CHACHA is not distinctive.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":376875,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[54525,60617,63796,31775,99614,99615,14321,46158,52951],"class_list":["post-376867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-anti-dissection-rule","tag-composite-trade-mark","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-distinctiveness","tag-dominant-feature-doctrine","tag-generic-mark-defence","tag-interim-injunction","tag-trade-mark-infringement","tag-trade-marks-act-1999"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Delhi HC grants injunction in Chacha trade mark dispute | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held &quot;Chacha&quot; distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mark &quot;Chacha&quot; distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held &quot;Chacha&quot; distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-26T07:30:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-05T05:16:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Mark &quot;Chacha&quot; distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC grants injunction in Chacha trade mark dispute | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-26T07:30:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-05T05:16:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held \\\"Chacha\\\" distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Chacha trade mark infringement\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mark &#8220;Chacha&#8221; distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC grants injunction in Chacha trade mark dispute | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held \"Chacha\" distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mark \"Chacha\" distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit","og_description":"Delhi High Court held \"Chacha\" distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-26T07:30:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-05T05:16:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Mark \"Chacha\" distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","name":"Delhi HC grants injunction in Chacha trade mark dispute | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-26T07:30:37+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-05T05:16:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Delhi High Court held \"Chacha\" distinctive for garments and granted interim injunction in trade mark infringement dispute, clarifying dominant feature and anti-dissection principles under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Chacha trade mark infringement"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mark &#8220;Chacha&#8221; distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":362363,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/03\/del-hc-no-infringement-suit-against-registered-trade-marks\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":0},"title":"Can infringement action be filed against a registered trade mark? Delhi HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"October 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhere two persons may be registered proprietors of marks, which are identical or deceptively similar to each other, neither person would be allowed to interfere with the exclusive right of the other person to use the mark, though each of them would have a right of injunction against a third\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"infringement registered trade mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/infringement-registered-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/infringement-registered-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/infringement-registered-trade-mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/infringement-registered-trade-mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/26\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-tata-sia-airlines-limited-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-restrains-vistara-media-private-limited-from-using-the-mark-vistara\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Tata Sia Airlines Limited in a trade mark infringement suit; restrains Vistara Media Private Limited from using the mark \u2018VISTARA\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"November 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where Tata Sia Airlines Limited filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J. passed an interim order restraining Vistara Media Private Limited from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":279621,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/15\/delhi-high-court-grants-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-to-sukam-systems-p-ltd-for-its-trade-mark-su-kam-against-lithium-power-energy-p-ltd-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants ex parte ad interim injunction to Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. for its trade mark \u2018Su-Kam\u2019 against Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In the present case, Sukam Systems (P) Ltd. alleged infringement and passing of by Lithium Power Energy (P) Ltd. of its registered trade marks \u2018Su-Kam\u2019, \u2018BIG conqueror Tubular Battery\u2019 and \u2018BIG Warrior Tubular Battery\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":281267,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/09\/delhi-high-court-confirms-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction-favour-aiwa-japan-company-mark-in-trade-mark-infringement-suit-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court confirms ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of AIWA Co. Ltd., a Japan company for its mark \u201cAIWA\u201d in a trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"January 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark \u201cAIVVA\u201d by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark \u201cAIWA\u201d of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark \u201cAIWA\u201d in a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":279919,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/19\/delhi-high-court-grants-interim-injunction-in-favour-of-whitehat-education-technology-in-a-trade-mark-infringement-suit-for-its-mark-whitehat-jr\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in favour of WhiteHat Education Technology in a trade mark infringement suit for its mark \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"December 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that the marks \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019 and \u2018WhiteHat Sr\u2019 were deceptively similar and therefore, restrained the defendants from using any trade mark, trade name and domain name which would amount to infringement of plaintiff's mark \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":277941,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/23\/delhi-high-court-confirms-ad-interim-ex-parte-order-of-injunction-passed-in-favour-of-sun-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-for-its-mark-forzest-cost-of-rs-10-lakhs-imposed-for-concealing\/","url_meta":{"origin":376867,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court confirms ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction passed in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. for its mark \u2018FORZEST\u2019; Cost of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed for concealing material facts","author":"Editor","date":"November 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single Judge Bench of Navin Chawla, J. confirmed the order of injunction passed by this Court in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and imposed Rs. 10,00,000 costs on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376867","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=376867"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376867\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/376875"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=376867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=376867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=376867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}