$~24 to 26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS)(IPD) 1/2023 DASAPRAKASH RESTAURANT AND ICE CREAM PARLOUR PVT LTD & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Joshy John, Mr. Manav Vohra, Ms. Kavita Nailwal and Ms. Pranjul Jain, Advocates versus MYSORE DASAPRAKASH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr.

Mukul Kulhari, Advocates + FAO(OS)(IPD) 2/2023 DASAPRAKASH RESTURANT AND ICE CREAM PARLOUR PVT LTD & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Joshy John, Mr. Manav Vohra, Ms. Kavita Nailwal and Ms. Pranjul Jain, Advocates versus MYSORE DASAPRKASH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr.

Mukul Kulhari, Advocates + FAO(OS)(IPD) 3/2023 DASAPRAKASH RESTAURANT AND ICE CREAM PARLOUR PVT LTD & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Joshy John, Mr. Manav Vohra, Ms. Kavita Nailwal and Ms. Pranjul Jain, Advocates versus MYSORE DASAPRAKASH AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr.

Mukul Kulhari, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 21.01.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. We have taken up these appeals consequent on directions issued by the Supreme Court in order dated 22 September 2015 in Civil Appeals 7884-86/2015.

2. Civil Appeals 7884-86/2015 challenged judgment dated 28 August 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras which, in turn, upheld the judgment dated 12 November 2008 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras, adjudicating OAs

1072-1074/2008 filed by the respondents in CS 945/2008, 1MysoreDasaprakashandAnrv.DasaprakashRestaurantandIceCreamParlorPvt.Ltd.&Ors

3. As these proceedings germinated in the High Court of Madras, it is also necessary to note how we have come to exercise jurisdiction in the matter.

4. CS 945/2008 was transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court by order dated 22 August 2017 and now stands renumbered by the Registry of this Court as CS (OS) 344/2017. Subsequently, applications were filed by the respondents before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the present appeals from the High Court of Madras to this Court. By order dated 7 July 2023, the Supreme Court transferred the present appeals to this Court. It is thus that these appeals have come up before us.

5. We may note that CS (OS) 344/2017 is presently pending before the Intellectual Property Division of this Court and was last listed on 1 December 2025.

6. The order dated 22 September 2015, whereby the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 28 August 2009 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras and directed reconsideration of the matter by the Division Bench, noted the fact that the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras had not considered all aspects while passing judgment dated 20 August 2009. It was in these terms that the matter was remanded to the Division Bench for de novo consideration. 7. We have heard Mr. Joshy John, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tishampati Sen, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.

8. The issue in controversy has considerably narrowed down, as a consequence of a recent judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in CMA (TM) 2/2023, 2DasprakashRestaurantandIceCreamParlourPvt.Ltd.v.DeputyResgistrarofTrademarks. We would come to the said judgment by and by.

The lis

9. The respondents contended, in the plaint forming subject matter of CS 945/2008, that Respondent 1 Mysore Dasaprakash was a firm, which was the registered owner of the DASAPRAKASH wordmark, registered under Section 18 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It was alleged, in the plaint, that the appellants were using the mark DASAPRAKASH for allied and cognate services without authorization and that, therefore, they were infringers of the mark.

Facts

10. Sitarama Rao, admittedly the originator of the DASAPRAKASH mark, had eight sons. The plain