Dpac Ventures LLP Vs. Exotic Mile Private Limited

Case Title: Dpac Ventures LLP Vs. Exotic Mile Private Limited  

Order Date: October 3, 2025  

Case Numbers: COMAP No. 530 of 2025 & COMAP No. 534 of 2025  

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:39385-DB  

Name of Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru  

Name of Hon'ble Judges: Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and Mr. Justice K. V. Aravind

Fact  

This case involves a dispute over trademark rights in the gadget industry. The plaintiff, Dpac Ventures LLP, holds several registered trademarks including GOBOLD, GOJOLT, and GOVO, all registered for goods and services relating to Class 9, particularly headphones and similar electronic devices. The defendant, Exotic Mile Private Limited, began using the trademark GOBOULT in 2025 and registered it for similar classes of goods, asserting commercial success with significant turnover and marketing expenditure. The plaintiff alleged that the mark GOBOULT was deceptively similar to its own registrations and sought to restrain the defendant from its use, citing both trademark infringement and passing off. The business background and overlapping product segments made this dispute particularly relevant for Indian commercial trademark law.

Procedural Detail  

Dpac Ventures LLP brought its suit before the Commercial Court in Bengaluru, seeking an urgent injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff also requested dispensation with pre-institution mediation as required under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, arguing the urgency of interim relief. The Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining Exotic Mile Private Limited from using the mark GOBOULT or any deceptively similar mark, pending disposal of the suit and the court’s application. The plaintiff was further directed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC and to approach the District Legal Services Authority for time-bound mediation.

The defendant challenged this order on the grounds that it held a registered trademark and that the injunction’s abrupt enforcement would cause substantial business hardship, including stress to its workforce and disruption of commercial operations. The respective parties filed cross-appeals: Exotic Mile Private Limited appealed against the injunction, while Dpac Ventures LLP appealed against the directive for pre-institution mediation.

Dispute  

The core dispute concerns whether the defendant’s use of the mark GOBOULT amounts to trademark infringement and passing off against the plaintiff’s prior registered marks GOBOLD, GOJOLT, and GOVO, all related to similar consumer gadgets. The plaintiff stressed prior registration and likelihood of confusion due to the visual and phonetic similarities of the marks. The defendant argued the benefit of its own registered mark’s prima facie validity under Section 31 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, ongoing large-scale business activity, and absence of restraint by other courts. Additional arguments involved compliance with court processes, disclosures, and jurisdictional matters.

Detailed Reasoning including Judgment  

The Hon’ble Division Bench reviewed the commercial court’s order, addressing key legal issues. Firstly, the court clarified that the commercial court’s refusal to dispense with pre-institution mediation was contrary to recent Supreme Court guidance (Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1129) which held that urgent interim relief applications merited dispensation from mandatory mediation, based on the urgency of relief sought. The bench thus allowed the plaintiff’s appeal, permitting them to bypass mediation procedures.

Secondly, the court analyzed the commercial court’s grant of ex parte injunction. It noted that a court must record detailed reasons for immediate relief, especially due to the potential business disruption (citing Vedant Fashions Private Limited v. Smt. Rajul Devi, W.P. Nos. 33158/2015 & 33300/2014, and Smt. Supriya Shrinate v. Ms. MRT Music ORS, Commercial Appeal No. 460/2022). The injunction order, while stating that delay would defeat the injunction’s purpose, lacked justification about the business impact and reciprocal inconvenience to the defendant, whose turnover and workforce scale were substantial. The bench held that, in such commercial matters, injunctions should not be granted in a perfunctory manner and must consider genuine hardship and commercial realities.

The court also attended to the defendant’s assertion of valid registration and ongoing business activity. Under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, a registered trademark enjoys prima facie validity; however, the plaintiff’s prior registrations and the apparent similarity of the marks warranted judicial scrutiny. The bench concluded that, while immediate restraint should not be enforced solely ex parte, the matter merited expedient court review.

Decision  

The Division Bench modified the commercial court’s orders. Firstly, it dispensed entirely with the requirement for pre-institution mediation and settlement, aligning with the Supreme Court’s direction for urgent remedies. Secondly, it allowed Exotic Mile Private Limited to continue its business under the GOBOULT mark in Class 9 and 35, but imposed an obligation to file weekly business accounts in the commercial court. The commercial court was directed to dispose of the pending application for interim injunction expeditiously—no later than November 10, 2025—and both parties were instructed to cooperate for an early decision. The defendant was ordered to appear and complete pleadings on the next hearing date. This order struck a middle ground, preserving both parties’ interests until the Commercial Court’s final ruling, balancing urgency, business continuity, and judicial scrutiny.

Citations and Key Legal Provisions Discussed  

Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (pre-institution mediation)  

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (temporary injunction)  

Section 31, Trade Marks Act, 1999 (prima facie validity of registered trademark)  

Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 1129 (Supreme Court guidance on mediation)  

Vedant Fashions Private Limited v. Smt. Rajul Devi and Smt. Supriya Shrinate v. Ms. MRT Music ORS (high court precedents on injunction reasoning)

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

Suggested Titles for Publication  

1. Balancing Trademark Rights with Business Interests: Analysis of Dpac Ventures LLP v. Exotic Mile Private Limited  

2. Mediation and Urgent Interim Relief in Trademark Disputes: Lessons from the Karnataka High Court  

3. Commercial Injunctions in Trademark Law: Judicial Reasoning Made Simple  

4. Prima Facie Validity Versus Prior Registration: The GOBOULT-GOBOLD Trademark Conflict  

5. Judicial Treatment of Business Hardship in Commercial Trademark Litigation