High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Trademark Dispute Between GoBold and GoBoult — Interim Injunction Set Aside. The court held that the Commercial Court's order directing the defendant to use 'formerly BOULT' was not justified as the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 22:23:10

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Exotic Mile Private Limited (defendant), challenged an interim order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural, in Commercial OS No.199/2025. The respondent, DPAC Ventures LLP (plaintiff), had filed a suit for trademark infringement alleging that the defendant's mark 'GoBoult' was deceptively similar to its registered mark 'GoBold'. The Commercial Court partly allowed IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff, directing the defendant to prefix or suffix the word 'formerly BOULT' while using the mark 'GoBoult' and to publish a public notice. The defendant appealed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court of Karnataka, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, heard the appeal. The court observed that the plaintiff had not established a strong prima facie case, as the marks were not identical and the defendant had prior use of 'BOULT'. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, as the interim order effectively granted the plaintiff the entire relief sought without a trial. The court held that the direction to use 'formerly BOULT' was too onerous and amounted to a mandatory injunction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the defendant to use the mark 'GoBoult' without any disclaimer, subject to the final outcome of the suit. The appeal was allowed.

Headnote

A) Trademark Law - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court examined whether the Commercial Court's order directing the defendant to use a disclaimer 'formerly BOULT' was appropriate, considering the balance of convenience and the fact that the defendant had been using the mark 'GoBoult' for a significant period. Held that the order was not sustainable as it effectively granted the plaintiff the entire relief sought without a full trial, and the balance of convenience favored the defendant. (Paras 1-10)

B) Trademark Law - Prima Facie Case - Irreparable Injury - The court noted that the plaintiff had not made out a strong prima facie case of infringement, as the marks 'GoBold' and 'GoBoult' were not identical and the defendant had prior use of 'BOULT'. The irreparable injury to the defendant from the order outweighed any potential injury to the plaintiff. (Paras 5-8)

C) Trademark Law - Disclaimer as Alternative Remedy - The court held that the Commercial Court could have considered a less drastic remedy, such as a disclaimer, but the specific direction to use 'formerly BOULT' was too onerous and amounted to a mandatory injunction. The court modified the order to allow the defendant to use the mark 'GoBoult' without the disclaimer, subject to the outcome of the suit. (Paras 9-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Commercial Court's interim order directing the defendant to prefix/suffix 'formerly BOULT' while using the mark 'GoBoult' was justified, and whether the appeal against such order should be allowed.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2025, and permitted the defendant to use the mark 'GoBoult' without any disclaimer, subject to the final outcome of the suit.

Law Points

Trademark infringement
interim injunction
balance of convenience
prima facie case
irreparable injury
disclaimer as alternative remedy

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (11) 20

COMAP No. 617 of 2025

2025-11-24

Vibhu Bakhru, C.J., C.M. Poonacha, J.

Sri Chader Pal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Prashanth Kumar, Ms. Shristi Widge, Mr. Rishi Aneja, Ms. Vanita, Ms. Aisiri Raj for Sri Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni for Appellant; Sri M.S. Shyamsundar, Senior Advocate, Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi for C/Respondent

Exotic Mile Private Limited

DPAC Ventures LLP

Nature of Litigation

Commercial appeal against an interim order in a trademark infringement suit

Remedy Sought

Setting aside the order dated 10.11.2025 in IA No.2 in Commercial OS No.199/2025 to the extent it partly allowed the application

Filing Reason

The appellant (defendant) challenged the Commercial Court's order directing it to prefix/suffix 'formerly BOULT' while using the mark 'GoBoult'

Previous Decisions

The Commercial Court partly allowed IA No.2 filed by the respondent (plaintiff) on 10.11.2025

Issues

Whether the Commercial Court's interim order directing the defendant to use a disclaimer 'formerly BOULT' was justified? Whether the balance of convenience favored the grant of such interim relief?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the order was too onerous and effectively granted the plaintiff the entire relief sought without a trial. Respondent argued that the order was necessary to prevent confusion and protect its trademark rights.

Ratio Decidendi

In trademark infringement cases, an interim injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favors such relief. A direction to use a disclaimer that effectively grants the entire relief sought without a trial is not sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant (hereafter the defendant) has filed the present appeal challenging an order dated 10.11.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge [Commercial Court] in Com.OS.No.199/2025, whereby the court partly allowed the interlocutory application (IA No.2) filed by the respondent and, inter alia, directed as under: 'Defendant company shall a) Prefix or suffix the word (formerly BOULT) while using, selling or offering for sale, soliciting, advertising, displaying or in any manner dealing in goods or services under the mark GoBoult or any other mark similar to the plaintiff's trade mark GoBold.' The court held that the order was not sustainable as it effectively granted the plaintiff the entire relief sought without a full trial, and the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

Procedural History

The respondent filed Commercial OS No.199/2025 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural, seeking relief for trademark infringement. The respondent filed IA No.2 for interim injunction. The Commercial Court partly allowed IA No.2 on 10.11.2025. The appellant filed the present appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on 24.11.2025.