Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul upheld an interim order restraining smart wearable brand Exotic Mile from using the BOULT trademark and logos alleged to be deceptively similar to Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd’s boAt mark. Though Exotic Mile contended that phonetic similarity has no relevance in the online marketplace, the Bench held that visual and phonetic resemblance between the competing marks and devices was sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of passing off. At the same time, the Court clarified that the injunction did not extend to the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” or to the mark GOBOULT, thereby confining the restraint strictly to the disputed logos and the BOULT mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The litigation originated from a suit filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd (IMPL), proprietor of the “boAt” brand, against Exotic Mile (EM), alleging infringement and passing off. IMPL claimed extensive goodwill and reputation in its registered marks, logos, and the tagline “Plug Into Nirvana”, substantiated by sales figures rising from ₹5.5 crores in 2014–15 to over ₹330 crores in 2019–20. It alleged that EM’s adoption of the mark BOULT, logos resembling triangular devices, and the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” created a likelihood of consumer confusion with its established brand identity. Instances of alleged customer confusion were placed on record, including emails from buyers mistaking EM’s products for IMPL’s.

Also Read: Delhi High Court: GST Department Cannot Access Lawyer’s Computer Without Presence or Consent | Examination Allowed Only With Counsel and Court IT Officials

In its plaint, IMPL sought a permanent injunction restraining EM from using the marks BOULT, related logos, and taglines, along with ancillary reliefs of delivery-up, rendition of accounts, and damages. Interim relief was requested under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, leading to an ex parte ad-interim injunction against EM’s use of the contested marks.

EM contested the allegations, asserting independent creation and continuous use of its marks since 2017. It argued that BOULT was coined arbitrarily, derived from “BOLT,” and accompanied by a distinctive logo created by joining the initials of Boult Audio. EM highlighted substantial turnover growth, reaching over ₹66 crores in 2019, and extensive promotional expenditure. It denied similarity between its marks and IMPL’s, contending that terms like “Plug” and “Bass” were common to the trade. EM further pointed out that its device mark stood registered under the Trade Marks Act, thereby insulating it from infringement claims, limiting the dispute to passing off.

In replication, IMPL disputed EM’s claim of prior use and alleged dishonest adoption, particularly given Varun Gupta’s earlier association with IMPL as a reseller. IMPL maintained that EM’s marks and taglines were designed to exploit its goodwill.

The learned Single Judge, in January 2020, held that phonetic similarity between BOAT and BOULT, visual resemblance of triangular logos, and similarity of taglines constituted passing off. An interim injunction was granted restraining EM from using the logos and tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF”. EM appealed this order before the Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Division Bench recorded that: “IMPL never sought any injunction against the use of the tag line UNPLUG YOURSELF by EM. The learned Single Judge could not, therefore, have granted such an injunction. The impugned order, to the extent it injuncts EM from using the tag line UNPLUG YOURSELF is, therefore, quashed.”

On the scope of EM’s new mark, the Court stated: “The impugned order does not injunct EM from using the said mark [GOBOULT]. It does not even extend the injunction to marks which may be similar… There is no cross-appeal or cross-objection by IMPL praying that the learned Single Judge ought to have extended the injunction to all marks which are similar… In the absence of any injunction, direct or indirect, EM can obviously not be restrained from using the mark GOBOULT.”

Regarding the Single Judge’s injunction against the three logos, the Court noted: “The injunction against the use, by EM, of the marks … has been granted by the learned Single Judge by applying the correct principles. We have already enumerated the reasons cited by the learned Single Judge in arriving at her conclusions, and they are legally sound.”

The Bench also emphasized the limits of appellate review: “Appeals against interlocutory orders passed by the Commercial Court in applications under Order XXXIX of the CPC are appeals on principle. The appellate Court does not substitute its subjective view for the view adopted by the learned Commercial Court, even if it feels that the view that it has itself adopted is more appropriate or suitable.”

On the test for passing off, the judgment recorded: “Passing off requires three ingredients… goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant has adopted a deceptively similar mark, or trade dress, as would result in the defendant’s goods being likely to be purchased, believing them to be the plaintiff’s.”

Also Read: Supreme Court | Mere Neighbourhood Quarrels Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide | Conviction Under S.306 IPC Set Aside

The Court upheld the injunction restraining EM from using the three disputed logos, pending final disposal of the suit. At the same time, it quashed the Single Judge’s direction against the use of the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF”, holding that relief beyond the pleadings could not be granted.

“It is clarified that as the use of the mark GOBOULT by EM was never under challenge before the learned Single Judge, and the learned Single Judge has restricted the injunction only specifically to use of the … marks, there is no restraint against use of the mark GOBOULT by EM. If IMPL desires to challenge the said use, that would form a separate cause of action which would have to be taken up in appropriate proceedings.”

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Miglani, Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Mr. Sharabh Shrivastava, Ms. Taaniyaa Dograa, Ms. Anushka Aman, Mr. Harshit Bhoi, Mr. Krishnesh Bapat and Ms. Sarah Haque, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Jayant Mehta and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocates with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Ms. Suman Yadav, Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Nikhita K. Suri, Mr. Arunabha Ganguli, Ms. Atishree Sood, Mr. Raghav Dutt and Mr. Gurudas Khurana, Advocates.

Case Title: Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 8075 - DB
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2020, CM APPLs. 61732/2024, 61733/2024, 17866/2025 & 27609/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul