Introduction:

In Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP, the Karnataka High Court, through a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. M. Poonacha, upheld a Commercial Court’s interim order directing Exotic Mile, the owner of the newly rebranded consumer electronics label “GoBoult,” to display the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” on all its product packaging, listings and online marketplace entries, as a necessary measure to prevent consumer deception and marketplace confusion with the competing brand “GoBold” owned by DPAC Ventures LLP. The matter arose in the context of a trademark and passing-off dispute where DPAC claimed that “GoBoult,” visually, phonetically, and structurally resembled its existing and widely marketed “GoBold” mark, leading to a substantial likelihood that consumers browsing digital retail platforms would mistakenly believe that GoBoult products originated from, or were connected with, the GoBold brand. The Commercial Court, after reviewing branding material, marketplace listings, advertising records and sales data, had partly accepted DPAC’s contention and issued limited injunctive directions including the requirement that Exotic Mile add the disclaimer “formerly BOULT,” publish a newspaper notice and submit weekly sales figures for GoBoult products. Exotic Mile appealed, arguing that GoBoult was its legitimately registered trademark, adopted in good faith and used after prior litigation required a corporate identity alteration. The High Court, however, agreed with the trial court’s reasoning, finding that the similarity between “GoBoult” and “GoBold,” coupled with DPAC’s demonstrated market presence, justified preventive measures to safeguard consumers and protect goodwill pending trial resolution.

Arguments of the Appellant:

Exotic Mile argued that the Commercial Court erred in directing the application of the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” because it held valid registrations for both “BOULT” and “GOBOULT,” and its shift to the GoBoult brand was a legitimate business decision arising from prior legal disputes unrelated to DPAC’s marks, making the imposition of disclaimers on its products an unnecessary and unwarranted restriction on its statutory rights as a registered trademark proprietor. The appellant contended that trademark registration confers exclusive rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the court should not have interfered with the use of a duly registered mark in the absence of conclusive evidence of deceptive similarity or actual consumer confusion. It further maintained that the words “GoBoult” and “GoBold” were conceptually distinct, visually different, and phonetically dissimilar, bearing different meanings and commercial impressions, and argued that the alleged resemblance was exaggerated by the respondent for competitive advantage. Exotic Mile also submitted that its products and packaging clearly identified its corporate identity, significantly reducing the possibility of confusion, and that the requirement to publish a national newspaper notice, upload weekly sales reports and add disclaimers placed an unfair and disproportionate burden on a lawful trademark owner merely exercising its rights. The appellant insisted that the balance of convenience lay in favour of preserving its freedom to use a registered mark, and that the Commercial Court’s decision amounted to penalising legitimate users while giving unwarranted protection to a rival who had not demonstrated any real or imminent damage.

Arguments of the Respondent (DPAC Ventures LLP):

DPAC Ventures LLP, in response, argued that the Commercial Court’s order was justified because “GoBoult” was deceptively similar to its foundational brand “GoBold,” a mark that DPAC had continuously used for years in connection with high-volume online sales of audio devices and on which it had expended significant financial resources for marketing, branding, influencer campaigns and e-commerce visibility, thereby generating substantial goodwill and strong consumer association which merited legal protection. The respondent submitted evidence of online listings, sales charts, brand expenditure, advertisements and third-party recognitions demonstrating that GoBold had a recognisable and established commercial identity in the market, and that the arrival of GoBoult created confusion due to the nearly identical structure of the marks, both beginning with “GoBo-,” differing only by the last two letters, a similarity which algorithms on e-commerce platforms, consumer search patterns, and average shoppers’ imperfect recollection made particularly problematic. DPAC argued that Indian trademark law places emphasis on the likelihood of confusion, and not merely actual confusion, and that the Commercial Court had correctly applied the three-prong test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm—especially since the respondent’s strong online presence meant even minor confusion could cause substantial and untraceable revenue loss. It also submitted that Exotic Mile’s claim of proprietary rights failed because trademark registration does not grant immunity against passing-off actions, and consumer protection remains a paramount consideration where competing brands operate within the same product category, price segment and digital retail environment.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court dismissed Exotic Mile’s appeal and upheld the Commercial Court’s interim order, holding that the direction requiring the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” was neither arbitrary nor contrary to settled legal principles but rather a justified and proportionate preventive measure aimed at reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion between the marks “GoBold” and “GoBoult,” which the Commercial Court had prima facie found to be deceptively similar based on phonetic, structural and visual comparison as well as marketplace context. The division bench emphasised that appellate courts must exercise restraint when reviewing discretionary interim orders, citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that an appellate court should not substitute its opinion merely because a different view is possible unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or ignores fundamental legal standards, and the Commercial Court in this case had correctly evaluated all relevant material including DPAC’s evidence of longstanding usage, significant branding expenditure and market goodwill. The High Court also accepted the trial court’s finding that DPAC had shown sufficient presence on digital marketplaces where consumer confusion was highly probable due to algorithm-driven product displays and imperfect consumer recollection, making preventive safeguards essential. It further held that Exotic Mile’s reliance on trademark registration was insufficient to override the respondent’s passing-off claim because registered marks do not confer a right to cause confusion or erode another brand’s goodwill, and that the disclaimer did not prevent Exotic Mile from using its registered mark but merely required constructive disclosure to minimise confusion during the pendency of the commercial suit. Concluding that the Commercial Court had balanced the parties’ rights appropriately, the High Court affirmed the requirement to add “formerly BOULT,” publish a notice in a national newspaper and file weekly sales updates, and dismissed the appeal.