Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd., v. The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd., 22, Chandra Path, Suraj Nagar, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Intellectual Property Office Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2. Shree Balakrishna Rao Represented by the Official Assignee, Office of the Official Assignee, High Court, Chennai 600 104.

3. K.Balaram Das (Deceased) No. 10, Raja Annamalai Road,

4. Rama Das (Deceased) No.10, Raja Annamalai Road,

5. K.Bhagwan Das (Deceased) No.10, Raja Annamalai Road,

6. K.Narayan Das (Deceased) No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, __________Page 1 of 8

7. K. Vijaya Das ( Deceased) Represented by K.Vikram Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road,

8. K.Ram Vittal Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road,

9. K. Madhavamuni Das Represented By K. Ram Vittal Das No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 10.Mysore Dasaprakash Registered Partnership Firm, Gandhi Square, Mysore 570001.

11.K.Sumithra Das No.49-51, Poonamalle High Road, 12.K.Vishnu Mohandas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 13.K.Bala Mukundadas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 14.K.Lakshminarayana Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 15.K.Latha Ramdas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 16.K.Raghu Ramdas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, __________Page 2 of 8

17.Kalyani Das Kuthethur No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 18.Bharathi Kuthethur No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 19.K.Anuradha B.Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 20.K.Dhananjaya Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 21.K.Shashabindu Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 22.K.Priya Prashanth No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 23.Kunethur Poornima No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 24.Kaimady Medhini Rao, No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 25.Bhakta Govinda Kuthethur Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 26.Kuthethur Pavanee No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 27.Kuthethur Sri Vasudeva Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, __________Page 3 of 8

28.Vikram Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 29.Madhavi Balal, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 30.Kamala Rao, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 31.Vishwanath Das No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 32.Jayalakshmi No.33, Balfor Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010.

33.Ganga Prasad No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010.

34.K.Kanthi, No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010.

35.P.Usha Rajendira No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010 ..Respondents Review Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XLVII Rule 1(a) and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dated 16.12.2025 in (T) CMA (TM) No.2 of 2023.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Arun C Mohan For Respondents :

Mr.C.Samivel, Senior Panel Counsel [R1] ***** __________Page 4 of 8

ORDER

This review petition has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in (T) CMA (TM) No.2 of 2023 dated 16.12.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the grounds raised in the review petition.

3. This Court while dismissing the appeal rendered a finding that when the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 16.01.2001, the appellant company was stillborn and it came into existence only on 17.01.2001. Therefore, this Court held that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.01.2001, at the best, can only be construed as an agreement to enter into a future agreement and that the agreement, by itself, did not create any right on the appellant company.

4. After rendering the above finding, apart from assigning other reasons, one of the reason assigned against the appellant company is that Balakrishna Rao was not a major shareholder and hence, he could not have transferred any right or title in favour of the appellant company since the requirement under Clause 16 of the Family Arrangement dated 03.05.1989 was not fulfilled.

__________Page 5 of 8

5. This review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the Articles of Association clearly shows that the said Balakrishna Rao was one of the first directors of the company. Clause 16 of the Family Arrangement r/w Section 24 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, contemplates not only a major shareholder but also a director. Therefore, even if the said Balakrishna Rao does not satisfy the requirement as a major shareholder, he is certainly a director as per the Articles of Association and therefore, the competency of the said Balakrishna Rao stands fulfilled.

6. In the considered view of this Court, even if the above ground raised in the review petition is accepted by this Court, that by itself will not result in reviewing the order passed in the appeal since many other reasons were given by this Court while dismissing the appeal and one such reason was regarding the competency of the said Balakrishna Rao.

7. In the light of the above discussion, the ground raised in the review petition by itself cannot result in an error apparent on the face of the order passed by this Court since many grounds have been put against the said Balakrishna Rao in the appeal and therefore, a single ground, which has been culled out of the order in favour of the said Balakrishna Rao, cannot result in reviewing the entire order passed in the appeal. __________Page 6 of 8

In view of the above, no grounds are made out for reviewing the order passed in the appeal. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. No costs.

22-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order gm To The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

__________Page 7 of 8

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm 22.01.2026 __________Page 8 of 8