Karnataka High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Use of Deceptively Similar Trademark

Exotic Mile Private Limited's appeal dismissed; DPAC Ventures LLP's "GoBold" trademark protected against "GOBOULT"

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Exotic Mile Private Limited, thereby upholding an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court in favor of DPAC Ventures LLP. The injunction restrains Exotic Mile from using the trademark "GOBOULT," which was found to be deceptively similar to DPAC's registered trademark "GoBold."

The case centers around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, with DPAC Ventures LLP asserting that Exotic Mile's use of "GOBOULT" was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm its established goodwill and reputation in the market. DPAC Ventures, engaged in the audio device market, registered its trademarks, including "GoBold," in 2021. The company has claimed significant market presence and goodwill associated with these trademarks since their registration.

Exotic Mile, on the other hand, argued that it has been using the trademark "BOULT" since 2017 and had registered "GOBOULT" in 2023. Despite this, the Commercial Court found that the balance of convenience favored DPAC, given its earlier registration and market presence. The court noted that the similarity in the trademarks could lead to consumer confusion, and hence, an interim injunction was justified to protect DPAC's interests.

In its appeal, Exotic Mile contended that the Commercial Court had erred in its judgment, arguing that there was no substantial evidence of goodwill associated with DPAC's "GoBold" trademark. However, the High Court found that the Commercial Court had judiciously evaluated the material evidence, including DPAC's significant advertising expenditures and sales figures, which demonstrated the commercial success and recognition of its trademarks.

The High Court, led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, emphasized that appellate courts should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., the High Court reiterated that appeals against discretionary orders should focus on principles rather than reassessing factual findings.

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of trademark protection and the judicial discretion exercised by commercial courts in granting interim relief to prevent consumer confusion and protect business goodwill. The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the protection afforded to trademark holders against subsequent registrations that could mislead consumers.

Bottom Line:

Trademark Law - Interim injunction granted to restrain use of deceptively similar trademarks to prevent confusion, misrepresentation, and harm to reputation.

Statutory provision(s): Trademark Act, 1999 Sections 28, 29, 34

Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818962