Madras High Court Rules ‘Dasaprakash’ Is a Joint Family Trademark, Dismisses Jaipur Firm’s Claim

Madras High Court Rules ‘Dasaprakash’ Is a Joint Family Trademark, Dismisses Jaipur Firm’s Claim

Introduction

The Madras High Court has refused to recognise a Jaipur-based company as a co-owner of the iconic “Dasaprakash” trademark. The Court held that the mark is a jointly owned family trademark and could not have been transferred or assigned by a single family member acting unilaterally.

Factual Background

The “Dasaprakash” brand traces its origins to the 1940s, when it was adopted by K.Seetharama Rao, founder of the Dasaprakash group, widely known for its chain of South Indian vegetarian restaurants and hotels. Over time, the business expanded into sweets, ice creams, and other hospitality services. The trademark was registered in 1963, with a further registration obtained in 1982. Both registrations continue to subsist and are jointly owned by the successors of the founder.

Following internal family disputes, a family arrangement dated 1989 permitted different branches of the family to use the “Dasaprakash” name in business, including in collaboration with third parties. However, the arrangement consistently treated the mark as a family trademark, subject to conditions and collective ownership.

Procedural Background

The appellant, Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt. Ltd., sought to be recorded as a co-proprietor of the “Dasaprakash” trademark before the Trade Marks Registry, relying on a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 16, 2001.

The Registry rejected this request in 2009, holding that no valid assignment of trademark rights had taken place. Challenging this decision, the company filed an appeal before the Madras High Court.

The appeal was heard and decided by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who delivered judgment on December 16, 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant could be recognised as a co-proprietor of the “Dasaprakash” trademark.

2. Whether the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding amounted to a valid assignment or transfer of trademark rights.

3. Whether one joint owner could unilaterally transfer rights in a jointly owned family trademark.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant: The appellant relied on the MOU 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, it sought to be recorded as a subsequent co-proprietor of the registered trademark.

Respondents: The respondents opposed the claim, arguing that:

● The trademark was jointly owned by the successors of the founder.

● No single family member had authority to transfer exclusive or proprietary rights.

● The alleged MOU did not constitute a valid assignment under trademark law.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Anand Venkatesh rejected the appellant’s claim at multiple levels. First, the Court noted that the appellant company itself was incorporated on January 17, 2001, a day after the alleged MOU. The document, therefore, could not operate as an assignment of trademark rights. The Court held that, at best, the MOU could be treated only as an agreement to enter into a future agreement, which by itself did not vest any proprietary rights in the appellant.

Crucially, the Court found that the MOU proceeded on an incorrect assumption that Balakrishna Rao was the sole proprietor of the “Dasaprakash” trademark. Relying on Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court reiterated that one joint proprietor cannot assign or transfer exclusive rights to the exclusion of other co-owners. Any use by one co-owner is deemed to be for the benefit of all.

The Court also took note of the fact that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against Balakrishna Rao. Once adjudged insolvent, his estate vested in the Official Assignee, rendering him legally incompetent to transfer trademark rights. Any agreement entered into thereafter was held to be void in law.

Decision

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to record the Jaipur-based company as a co-proprietor of the “Dasaprakash” trademark. The Court conclusively held that the brand remains a jointly owned family trademark, incapable of unilateral transfer by any one family member.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Arun C. Mohan, Advocate.