Madras High Court Rejects Jaipur Restaurant's Co-Ownership Claim To 'Dasaprakash' Trademark

The Madras High Court has refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the “Dasaprakash” trademark, holding that the brand is a jointly owned family mark that could not have been transferred by a single family member.

The original mark is commonly associated with a South Indian restaurant chain. 

A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment dated December 16, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd. and upheld a 2009 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its request to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the registered trademark.

The court held that no valid assignment or transfer of trademark rights had ever taken place in favour of the company and that the “Dasaprakash” mark continued to be jointly owned by the successors of its founder, K. Seetharama Rao.

Tracing the history of the brand, the court noted that the “Dasaprakash” trademark was adopted in the 1940s by K. Seetharama Rao, the founder of the Dasaprakash group, which is widely known for its chain of south Indian vegetarian restaurants and hotels and later expanded into sweets, ice creams and other hospitality services. The mark was registered in 1963, with a further registration obtained in 1982. Both registrations continue to subsist and are jointly owned by his successors.

The dispute arose from a family arrangement recorded in 1989, following internal disputes. Under this arrangement, family members were permitted to use the “Dasaprakash” name in business, including with third parties.

However, the arrangement treated the mark as a family trademark and imposed conditions on its use, especially where outsiders were involved.

The Jaipur-based company relied on a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 16, 2001, claiming that Balakrishna Rao, one of the family members, had agreed to transfer franchise and brand rights to it. On this basis, the company sought to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the trademark.

Rejecting this claim, the court pointed out that the company itself was incorporated only on January 17, 2001, a day after the alleged MOU. It held that the document could not operate as an assignment of trademark rights.

“At the best, the MOU dated 16.01.2001 can only be construed as an Agreement to enter into a future Agreement and that Agreement by itself does not vest any right on the appellant Company,” the court said.

The court also found that the MOU proceeded on the incorrect assumption that Balakrishna Rao was the sole proprietor of the trademark. Reiterating settled law, it held that one joint owner cannot assign or transfer exclusive rights in a trademark to the exclusion of other co-owners.

Relying on Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act, the court observed,

“When the parties are the joint proprietors of the registered trademarks, one of the co-proprietors will not have any right whatsoever to exclusively use the same and the use, if any, made by one of the co-proprietors will be only for the benefit of all the other joint proprietors”

The court also recorded that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against Balakrishna Rao. Once he was adjudged insolvent, his estate vested in the Official Assignee, making him legally incompetent to transfer trademark rights. Any such agreement, the court held, would be void.

In view of these findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to record the Jaipur-based company as a subsequent co-proprietor of the “Dasaprakash” trademark.

Click Here To Read/Download Order