Trademarks often become the battlefield where rising startups and established giants clash over consumer recognition and brand identity. Delhi High Court recently decided an important appeal in Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September 2025, dealing with the dispute between two well-known audio brands—Boult and boAt.
Title of the Case: Exotic Mile v. Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: FAO(OS)(COMM) 20/2020, CM APPLs. 61732/2024, 61733/2024, 17866/2025 & 27609/2025
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul
Judgment Date: 15 September 2025
Factual Background
Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (IMPL), owner of the popular “boAt” brand, manufactures and markets earphones, speakers, sound bars, and accessories. It holds registered trademarks including “boAt” logos, device marks, and the tagline “PLUG INTO NIRVANA”.
Exotic Mile (EM), trading under the brand “Boult”, entered the same market segment in 2017. IMPL alleged that:
- The mark “BOULT” was deceptively similar to “BOAT”, both phonetically and visually.
- EM also adopted confusingly similar logos (triangular designs) and the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF”, resembling IMPL’s “PLUG INTO NIRVANA.”
- Product names such as “Boult Bass Buds” resembled IMPL’s “boAt Bass Heads.”
- EM’s trade dress and packaging were deliberately imitative.
Accordingly, IMPL filed a suit in 2019 seeking an injunction and other relief for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Proceedings Before the Single Judge
Ex Parte Interim Order (2019): EM was restrained from using the impugned marks.
Applications:
- IMPL sought continuation of the injunction.
- EM sought vacation of the injunction.
Single Judge’s Order (Jan 2020):
- Injunction granted against EM’s use of logos and tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF.”
- Found phonetic similarity between “BOAT” and “BOULT.”
- Held that logos and taglines created likelihood of confusion.
- Even though EM’s mark was registered, injunction was justified on passing off grounds.
Appeal Before Division Bench
Exotic Mile challenged the injunction, arguing:
- No prayer was made against the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF,” hence the injunction exceeded pleadings.
- “BOAT” and “BOULT” differ visually and are bought by informed consumers; phonetic similarity alone is insufficient.
- No evidence of mala fides; adoption of logo was honest.
- Products were sold mostly online, reducing the chances of confusion.
- IMPL allegedly misled the Court with fabricated customer confusion evidence.
IMPL countered that:
- It had established goodwill since 2014.
- The similarity in name, logos, product names, and taglines created inevitable confusion.
- EM attempted to ride on boAt’s goodwill.
- Emails from consumers proved confusion between boAt and Boult.
- Even if “GOBOULT” was proposed later, it violated the “safe distance” principle.
Issues
- Whether the Single Judge was justified in injuncting “UNPLUG YOURSELF” without specific prayer.
- Whether the injunction against EM’s logos was valid.
- Whether EM could lawfully adopt and use the proposed mark “GOBOULT.”
Court’s Findings
1. Injunction on Tagline
- Set Aside.
- Relief cannot go beyond pleadings. Since IMPL never sought an injunction on “UNPLUG YOURSELF,” the Single Judge erred in granting it.
2. Use of “GOBOULT”
- Allowed (for now).
- The injunction was confined only to specific logos; no order barred “GOBOULT.”
- If IMPL believes “GOBOULT” is deceptively similar, it must file a fresh suit.
3. Validity of Injunction on Logos
- Upheld.
- Passing off principles applied correctly.
- IMPL had established goodwill (turnover from ₹5.5 cr in 2014–15 to ₹330 cr in 2019–20).
- Logos were deceptively similar (triangular shapes); phonetic closeness of BOAT–BOULT heightened risk.
- Addition of product names/taglines increased confusion.
- Likelihood of deception, not proof of actual confusion, was sufficient.
4. Appellate Scope
- Division Bench reiterated Wander Ltd. v. Antox India principles: appellate courts interfere with discretionary injunctions only if perverse or illegal.
- Found the Single Judge’s order reasonable and based on correct legal principles.
Final Decision
- Injunction against EM’s use of logos affirmed.
- Injunction against use of tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” quashed.
- Clarified that “GOBOULT” is not injuncted; separate proceedings required if challenged.
- Appeal partly allowed; no costs.
Legal Significance
- Limits on Judicial Relief: Courts cannot grant reliefs not specifically prayed for (re: tagline).
- Passing Off v. Infringement: Even a registered mark (BOULT) may be injuncted if its use constitutes passing off.
- Phonetic and Visual Similarity: Courts evaluate marks holistically, considering logos, taglines, and product names.
- Consumer Confusion Standard: Average intelligence and imperfect recollection remain the touchstone.
- “GOBOULT” Clarification: Highlights that new marks may require independent challenges.
Conclusion
The decision strikes a careful balance between protecting established goodwill and preventing overreach in granting injunctions. By affirming the injunction against Boult’s logos but setting aside the restraint on “UNPLUG YOURSELF,” the Court underscored two vital principles of trademark jurisprudence: first, that relief must remain confined to what is sought in the pleadings, and second, that consumer confusion—rather than registration status alone—is the real test in passing off actions. The clarification regarding “GOBOULT” further reflects judicial restraint, leaving room for future challenges while refusing to extend the scope of the existing suit.
In essence, the ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining a safe distance between competing brands, protecting both consumer interests and the integrity of established trademarks, while reminding courts not to travel beyond the scope of reliefs claimed.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams