Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Exotic Mile

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Exotic Mile Date of Judgment: 06.07.2026 : Case No.: CS(COMM) 519/2019 :2026:DHC:5374:Hon'ble Judge Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

The Court considered a dispute concerning the grant of an interim injunction in a trademark and passing off action involving the marks "BOAT" and "BOULT". The case arose from an application filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. seeking to restrain Exotic Mile from using the word mark "BOULT", contending that it was deceptively similar to its well-known trademark "BOAT". The principal question before the Court was whether a second application seeking an interim injunction against the word mark "BOULT" was maintainable after an earlier injunction application had already been decided.

The main arguments of the contesting parties were that the plaintiff contended the omission of the word mark "BOULT" from the earlier injunction order was merely inadvertent and that the defendant continued to exploit a deceptively similar mark despite earlier judicial findings regarding phonetic similarity. The defendant argued that the application was barred by issue estoppel, amounted to an abuse of process, and sought identical relief already declined earlier without any change in circumstances or undue hardship.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, the High Court of Delhi observed that the earlier judgment had consciously restricted the injunction to certain device marks and had not restrained the use of the word mark "BOULT". The Court held that a second interim injunction application on the same facts is maintainable only upon demonstrating changed circumstances or undue hardship, neither of which had been established in the present case. The Court further emphasized that successive applications cannot be used to indirectly rewrite or modify an earlier judicial order which has already attained finality.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application and declined to grant an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the word mark "BOULT".

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.

Maintainability of Second Injunction Application in Trademark Suit

Introduction

The Delhi High Court's decision in Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile is an important addition to Indian trademark jurisprudence dealing not only with deceptive similarity and passing off but also with the procedural limitations governing successive applications for interim injunctions. The judgment clarifies that even where a party believes an earlier order omitted a particular relief due to oversight, the proper remedy is not to repeatedly seek identical interim relief through fresh applications. 

Factual and Procedural Background

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the well-known trademark "BOAT" for electronic goods and accessories, instituted a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against Exotic Mile alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, dilution of its brand and passing off. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had adopted the mark "BOULT" along with several device marks, logos and packaging which were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established "BOAT" brand.

At the inception of the suit, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the word mark "BOULT", its device marks and other deceptively similar marks. Subsequently, the defendant applied for vacation of the interim injunction.

By judgment dated 21 January 2020, the Court disposed of both applications. While holding that the plaintiff was the prior user and observing that "BOAT" and "BOULT" were phonetically similar, the Court granted interim protection only with respect to specified device marks, copyright infringement, passing off and dilution. The operative portion of the order, however, did not expressly restrain the defendant from using the standalone word mark "BOULT".

The defendant challenged the order before the Division Bench. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant informed the Court that it had substantially discontinued the use of the impugned marks and had transitioned to the mark "GOBOULT". The Division Bench ultimately upheld the injunction regarding the device marks but clarified that there had never been any injunction restraining the use of "GOBOULT", leaving it open to the plaintiff to challenge that mark separately if advised.

After disposal of the appeal, the plaintiff filed another application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction specifically against the word mark "BOULT". The plaintiff argued that omission of the word mark from the earlier operative order was merely inadvertent and contrary to the findings recorded in the judgment regarding deceptive similarity. The defendant opposed the application, contending that it sought identical relief that had effectively already been refused, and was therefore barred by settled procedural principles governing successive injunction applications.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff could maintain a second application seeking substantially the same interim injunction that had not been granted in the earlier proceedings.

The plaintiff maintained that the findings recorded in the earlier judgment clearly established deceptive phonetic similarity between "BOAT" and "BOULT". According to the plaintiff, the omission of the word mark from the operative portion of the earlier order was only an accidental oversight which should not deprive it of protection. It further argued that the Division Bench had affirmed the findings relating to deceptive similarity and therefore the defendant ought to be restrained from continuing to use the impugned word mark.

The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff never sought review, clarification or modification of the earlier order nor filed any cross appeal. Instead, after allowing the earlier proceedings to attain finality, it attempted to obtain the same relief through a fresh injunction application. According to the defendant, permitting such a course would undermine the doctrine of finality, encourage repetitive litigation and amount to an abuse of judicial process.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The High Court carefully examined the procedural history of the litigation and concluded that the earlier judgment unmistakably restricted interim protection to specified device marks and did not extend the injunction to the standalone word mark "BOULT". The Court observed that if the plaintiff genuinely believed the omission resulted from oversight, the appropriate legal remedies were review, clarification, modification or cross appeal. Having failed to adopt any of those remedies and having allowed several years to pass, the plaintiff could not seek identical relief through a fresh interlocutory application.

The Court relied extensively upon the principles governing successive applications for interim injunctions. It referred to Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 43, explaining that interlocutory orders may be revisited only in legally recognised circumstances. The Court also discussed Rakesh Madan and Another v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 39, which recognizes that a subsequent injunction application may be entertained only where there exists a genuine change in circumstances or where the earlier order causes undue hardship.

The Court found that neither requirement had been satisfied. According to the Court, the observations made by the Division Bench merely clarified what already existed in the earlier judgment and did not constitute a fresh circumstance giving rise to a new cause for interim relief. Likewise, the plaintiff had failed to specifically plead or establish any undue hardship as required by law.

The Court also referred to Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh, (1987) 1 SCC 727 while discussing the applicability of principles analogous to res judicata at successive stages of the same proceedings. It further relied upon S. Malla Reddy v. Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society, (2013) 9 SCC 349, K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573 and Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, (1999) 5 SCC 590 to reiterate that repetitive proceedings seeking substantially identical relief amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court also considered the plaintiff's reliance on Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 14 regarding deceptive similarity between competing marks. While acknowledging the legal principles governing trademark infringement and passing off, the Court held that the present controversy was fundamentally procedural. The issue was not whether "BOAT" and "BOULT" were phonetically similar, but whether the plaintiff could reopen an issue already concluded through another interim application.

The Court further examined the plaintiff's invocation of the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Referring to K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, it observed that inherent powers cannot be exercised to circumvent or override specific statutory provisions governing interlocutory injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The Court also noticed that the defendant had consistently stated before the Division Bench as well as before the Single Judge that it had already transitioned from "BOULT" to "GOBOULT" and was prepared to cooperate in removing any residual online listings. This further weakened the plaintiff's plea of continuing hardship.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the word mark "BOULT". The Court held that the application was not maintainable because it sought substantially the same interim relief that had not been granted in the earlier proceedings. It found that the plaintiff had neither established any change in circumstances nor demonstrated undue hardship, which alone could justify entertaining a second application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court further observed that granting the relief sought would effectively amount to rewriting the earlier orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, which had already attained finality. Accordingly, the application was dismissed without granting any further interim protection against the use of the word mark "BOULT".

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reiterates that a second application for interim injunction seeking substantially identical relief is ordinarily not maintainable merely because a party believes that an earlier order omitted a particular relief or contains an inadvertent error. Such an application can be entertained only where the applicant establishes genuine changed circumstances or undue hardship arising after the earlier order. The decision also reinforces that parties must pursue appropriate remedies such as review, clarification, modification or appeal instead of attempting to indirectly secure the same relief through successive interlocutory applications. The judgment strengthens procedural discipline in commercial and intellectual property litigation while reaffirming the principle that interlocutory proceedings cannot be repeatedly reopened in the absence of legally recognized grounds.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Exotic Mile

Date of Judgment/Order: 06 July 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 519/2019

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5374

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

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

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.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Rejects Fresh Injunction Plea Against BOULT Trademark in BOAT Dispute
2. Imagine Marketing v. Exotic Mile: Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Successive Interim Injunction Applications
3. BOAT vs BOULT Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Maintainability of Second Injunction Application
4. Delhi High Court Rules Second Interim Injunction Requires Changed Circumstances
5. BOAT Trademark Litigation: Delhi High Court Dismisses Fresh BOULT Injunction Application
6. Successive Interim Injunctions under CPC Explained by Delhi High Court
7. Delhi High Court on Abuse of Process in Trademark Litigation
8. BOAT vs BOULT: Key Takeaways from Delhi High Court's 2026 Trademark Decision
9. Order XXXIX CPC and Successive Injunction Applications: Delhi High Court Judgment Explained
10. Delhi High Court Reaffirms Procedural Finality in Commercial Trademark Disputes

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, Imagine Marketing, Exotic Mile, BOAT trademark, BOULT trademark, GOBOULT, trademark infringement, passing off, trademark litigation, intellectual property law, IP law India, Order 39 CPC, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, interim injunction, successive injunction application, abuse of process, issue estoppel, deceptive similarity, phonetic similarity, commercial courts, trademark dispute India, civil procedure, CPC, brand protection, Delhi High Court judgment, intellectual property litigation, trademark jurisprudence, passing off action, commercial litigation India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile, CS(COMM) 519/2019, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 06 July 2026, concerned an application seeking a fresh interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the word mark "BOULT" in a pending trademark infringement and passing off suit. The Court held that a second application for the same interim relief is maintainable only upon establishing changed circumstances or undue hardship. Since the plaintiff failed to satisfy either requirement and had not pursued review, clarification or appeal against the earlier order, the Court held that granting the relief would amount to rewriting the previous judicial orders. Consequently, the application was dismissed, reaffirming the principles governing successive interim injunction applications and procedural finality in commercial litigation.