Exotic Mile Vs. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd

Role of Pleading and Prayers in Trademark Injunctions

Facts: The present legal dispute revolves around Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd (IMPL) and Exotic Mile (EM). IMPL is a well-established company known primarily for its electronic gadgets such as earphones, headphones, speakers, soundbars, and travel chargers marketed under its flagship brand "boAt," launched in 2014. IMPL has registration of several trademarks and claims exclusive ownership of original logos and taglines including the trademark "boAt" and the tagline "PLUG INTO NIRVANA."

Exotic Mile, on the other hand, is engaged in selling audio gadgets and coined the mark "BOULT" and "BOULT AUDIO" starting in 2017. EM registered its device mark in 2017 and has been advertising and selling products under this brand. IMPL alleged that EM's mark "BOULT," along with its logos and the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF," was deceptively similar to IMPL’s marks, causing confusion among consumers and amounting to trademark infringement and passing off.

IMPL contended that EM’s use of the mark "BOULT," logo, and tagline was an intentional attempt to ride on IMPL's goodwill, thereby misleading customers. IMPL received complaints alleging customers bought EM’s products mistaking them for IMPL's because of the similarity in the marks and trade dress.

EM denied these claims, arguing that "BOULT" is an arbitrary word derived from "BOLT," and their logos and taglines are independently created without any intention to deceive. EM contended that their products cater to a different educated consumer segment unlikely to be confused by the similar-sounding mark. EM also stated that "BOULT" products have been used since 2017, advertising expenditure was significant, and the marks were registered, hence no infringement occurred.

Procedural Details: IMPL filed a civil suit  in the High Court of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction against Exotic Mile preventing them from using "BOULT" and related logos and taglines. IMPL also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.

The learned Single Judge initially granted an ex parte interim injunction, restraining EM from using the alleged infringing marks pending the suit. EM then filed an application to vacate this injunction, which was dismissed. EM appealed this order through FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2020 seeking to set aside the injunction.

Dispute:The core dispute in the case centered upon whether the use of the mark "BOULT" by EM amounts to infringement or passing off the registered "boAt" mark of IMPL. Issues included determination of deceptive similarity of the marks and logos, the likelihood of confusion amongst consumers, the legitimacy of injunctive relief against EM, and whether injunction could be extended to EM’s tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF" and the newly proposed mark "GOBOULT."

EM challenged the injunction granted against the use of the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF," which IMPL had not specifically prayed for. EM also sought to use "GOBOULT," contending the impugned order did not restrain that use.

Detailed Reasoning and Legal Discussion:The court first addressed the injunction concerning the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF." It was noted that the plaintiff IMPL never sought an injunction against this tagline. The Court held, based on established legal principles, that relief can only be granted on the basis of the prayers made in the plaint or application. Granting the injunction against a tagline not formally challenged was held to be legally unsustainable as per the Supreme Court rulings such as in *State of Uttarakhand v Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj*, (2017) 9 SCC 579, *Mahabir Prasad Jain v Ganga Singh*, (1999) 8 SCC 274, and other authorities emphasizing that courts cannot grant reliefs beyond pleadings.

Regarding the disputed mark "BOULT," the Court applied principles of passing off rather than infringement since EM’s mark was registered. Passing off requires establishment of (i) goodwill in the plaintiff’s mark, (ii) misrepresentation by the defendant, and (iii) resultant damage to the plaintiff. The Court recognized IMPL as the prior user with established goodwill in "boAt" and related logos and taglines and extensive promotion and advertising investments. 

The Court found that EM was aware of IMPL’s mark and market presence, including the involvement of Varun Gupta, EM’s promoter, who had previously been associated with IMPL as a distributor or consultant. The phonetic similarity—boAt and BOULT—was held significant because they share the same beginning and ending consonants “B” and “T,” a factor supported by precedents such as *K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Shri Ambal & Co and *Encore Electricals Ltd v Anchor Electronics. The Court emphasized the perception of a consumer with "imperfect recollection" who might be misled.

Visually, the logos of both parties were triangular in shape and bore resemblance, reinforcing the likelihood of confusion. The similarity extended to trade dress, including packaging and colour schemes. The Court ruled that such similarities cumulatively increased the risk of consumers mistaking EM’s products for IMPL’s.

The use of the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF," incorporating the word "PLUG," was found prima facie inspired by IMPL’s "PLUG INTO NIRVANA," further contributing to potential confusion. The Court also considered confusion between product names “Boult Bass Buds” and “boAt Bass Heads,” finding them deceptively similar.

EM’s argument that the primarily online nature of sales reduces confusion was rejected, as the Court pointed out that the goods are also sold in physical stores and the average consumer does not have perfect recall when purchasing.

The Court clarified that though EM’s mark was registered, no statutory infringement claim lay, but the common law tort of passing off was satisfied due to goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage to IMPL. The Court followed the principles as stated in *Wander Ltd v Antox India Pvt Ltd*,  and *Satyam Infoway Ltd v Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd*  explaining the elements and tests for passing off.

Regarding the mark "GOBOULT," the Court noted that this was not under challenge before the learned Single Judge and no injunction was passed against its use. The Court observed that any challenge to "GOBOULT" by IMPL would have to be pursued separately. Therefore, as of the date of the order, EM was free to use the mark "GOBOULT."

Decision:The Court partially upheld the interim injunction. The injunction restraining Exotic Mile from using the marks "BOULT" and related logos was affirmed, as was the injunction against the use of taglines confusingly similar in combination with those marks. The injunction against the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF" alone was set aside since it was not specifically prayed for.

The Court clarified that EM could use the mark "GOBOULT" as this was not covered by the injunction and IMPL was free to initiate separate proceedings if it believed this mark is deceptively similar.

Case Title:Exotic Mile Vs. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd  

Order Date: 15 September 2025  

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2020  

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8075

Court: High Court of Delhi  

Hon’ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul  

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi