Madras HC: Dasaprakash Restaurant's Trademark Appeal Denied Over Forged MOU

Quick Summary: The High Court of Madras turned down an appeal from Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour over the rights to use a brand name. The case was about the family-owned name "Dasaprakash" and a disputed deal with co-owner Balakrishna Rao.

The Case Begins: Trademark Dispute

On December 16, 2025, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh gave a decision about a fight over the brand name "Dasaprakash" between Dasaprakash Restaurant and the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks. The name "Dasaprakash" was a family brand started in 1940 by Mr. K. Seetharama Rao.

The MOU and the Company

Dasaprakash Restaurant claimed rights to the brand name through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated January 16, 2001, with Mr. Balakrishna Rao. However, the company was only officially formed on January 17, 2001, making the MOU suspicious.

"The MOU dated 16.01.2001 can't really be called a proper agreement and is more like a promise to make a future agreement."

Family Arrangements and Rights

The brand name "Dasaprakash" was owned by the family, shared by the legal heirs of Mr. K. Seetharama Rao. A family agreement in 1989 allowed family members to use the brand name, but only when working with other family members.

Legal Complications: Insolvency and Forgery Allegations

Balakrishna Rao was declared bankrupt in 2001, which made any deals he made more complicated. There were also claims that his signature on the MOU was forged.

"Balakrishna Rao's signature was faked on the MOU dated 16.01.2001, and he never signed any such agreement."

Court's Decision: Appeal Dismissed

The court agreed with the Deputy Registrar's decision from August 20, 2009, which turned down Dasaprakash Restaurant's request to be listed as a co-owner of the brand name. The judgment stressed that one owner cannot give away rights without the agreement of all other owners.

"The first respondent considered all these important facts and correctly rejected the application filed by the appellant in Form TM-24."

Summary

The appeal was rejected, confirming that the brand name "Dasaprakash" remains with the family, and no rights were given to the appellant company. This case shows how complicated family-owned brand names can be and the need for clear legal agreements.