Karnataka High Court
Exotic Mile Private Limited vs Dpac Ventures Llp on 3 October, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
COMAP No. 530 of 2025
C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2025
C/W
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2025
IN COMAP No. 530/2025
BETWEEN:
EXOTIC MILE PRIVATE LIMITED
(A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013),
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
B-67, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
Digitally NORTH WEST, DELHI 110052,
signed by
VANAMALA HAVING ITS SALES UNIT AT SURVEY NO. 26,
N KALKUNTE AGARHARA VOLLAGE,
Location: ANUGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL
HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA 560067.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MS. NUPUR JALAN, MS ARCHANA SAHADEVA
MS. AISIRI RAJ AND MS NANDITA K M.,ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
COMAP No. 530 of 2025
C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
DPAC VENTURES LLP
(AN LLP FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LLP ACT 2008),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DESIGNATED PARTNER,
PIYUSH JALAN,
HAVING ITS UNIT AT PLOT
NO. 78/A, SY NO. 118, 121 AND 551,
JIGANI 1ST PHASE, JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN,
KARNATAKA 560105.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S S NAGANAND., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI AND SUSHRAVYA G.,
ADVOCATES)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A)
OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025, PASSED IN IA
NO. 2 IN COM OS.NO.199/2025 (ANNEXURE A) FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT
PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL
COURT) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
TO THE EXTENT IT ALLOWS IA NO. 2 IN COMMERCIAL
OS NO. 199/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE
SUIT IN COMMERCIAL OS NO. 199/2025 FILED BY THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
COMAP No. 530 of 2025
C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT) BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU IN VIEW OF DISMISSAL
OF IA NO. 1.
IN COMAP NO. 534/2025
BETWEEN:
DPAC VENTURES LLP
(AN LLP FIRM INCORPRATED UNDER
THE LLP ACT 200
REP BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER
PIYUSH JALAN
HAVING ITS UNIT AT
PLOT NO 78/A SY NO 118
121 AND 551 JIGANI 1ST PHASE
JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN
KARTNATAKA 560105.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S S NAGANAND., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI., AND SUSHRAVYA G
ADVOCATES)
AND:
EXOTIC MILE PRIVATE LIMITED
(A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013)
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
COMAP No. 530 of 2025
C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025
HC-KAR
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
B-67 WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA NORTH WEST
DELHI 110052
HAVING ITS SALES UNIT AT
SURVEYNO 26 KALKUNTE AGRAHARA VILLAGE
ANUGONDAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA 560067.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR MS. NUPUR JALAN, MS ARCHANA SAHADEVA
MS. AISIRI RAJ AND MS NANDITA K M.,ADVOCATES)
THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1-A) OF
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 (ANNEXURE A)
FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL
COURT), BENGALURU RURAL.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
COMAP No. 530 of 2025
C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The appeal in COMAP No.530/2025 is by the defendant in the commercial Suit in Commercial O.S. No.199/2025 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [for short, 'the commercial Court']. The other appeal in appeal in COMAP No.534/2025 is by the plaintiff. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the commercial suit in Com. O.S. No.199/2025.
2. The defendant is aggrieved by the commercial Court's order dated 27.09.2025 on I.A. No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] as also the commercial Court's direction to the plaintiff to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Rural District [DLSA, BRD], for a 'time bound mediation'. The plaintiff is aggrieved by -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR the commercial Court's decision to reject its application under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015[ for short, 'the Act']. The operative portion of the commercial Court's impugned order reads as under:
"Issue ad-interim temporary injunction order restraining the defendant from using, selling or offering for sale, soliciting, or advertising, displaying or in any manner dealing in goods or services under the mark GoBoult or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark GoBold pending disposal of the suit, pending disposal of the application till next date of hearing. The petitioner shall comply the provisions of Rule 9 of High Court of Karnataka, Arbitration (proceedings before the courts) Rules 2001. Also shall comply order XXXIX Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure.
I. A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiff U/S 12-A of Commercial Courts Act seeking to dispense with pre-institution mediation as provided U/S 12-A of Commercial Courts Act is dismissed. Plaintiff is directed to approach DLSA, BRD for time bound mediation with the defendant and submit -7- NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR mediation report in the next date of hearing without fail."
3. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant is over the defendant's use of the registered trademark 'GOBOULT' for Class - 9 and 35 Goods and Services. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant cannot use this trademark because it infringes its registered trademark 'GOBOLD', 'GOJOLT', 'GOVO' and a variant of 'GOVO'. The plaintiff's trademark is also for Class - 9 Goods and Services. The defendant is a party to a dispute in Commercial Suit in C.S. (COMM) 519/2019 with the Delhi High Court, which is numbered otherwise later. This suit is by M/s. Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd over the use of the mark 'BOULT' and two other marks.
4. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in the appeals as against the interim orders in the commercial suit, has confirmed the temporary injunction against the defendant from using the mark -8- NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR 'BOULT'/other marks pending disposal of the suit clarifying that the defendant's use of the mark 'GOBOULT' was not under challenge and that there is no restraint against the use of such mark.
5. The commercial Court, in granting ex parte temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'GOBOULT' or any other mark deceptively similar to 'GOBOLD', has opined that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and that irreparable loss would be caused if the defendant is not so restrained while observing that any delay in granting interim order would defeat the purposes of granting injunction. The commercial Court has also observed that it is "unable to anticipate any type of reciprocal inconvenience that would be caused to the defendant in the event of granting ad interim ex parte injunction by dispensing with service of notice to the defendant."
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. The commercial Court has referred to the recent decision of the Apex Court in 'Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India and Another'1 in opining that unlike under Section 80[2] of CPC, an application for leave will not be required when a commercial suit is instituted seeking urgent interim order and that the test to decide whether the pre- institution mediation should be mandatory would depend on the contemplable test to be decided based on the subject matter of the suit, the cause of action and the prayer for urgent relief.
7. Sri Udaya Holla and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned Senior counsels for the defendant and Sri S S Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, are first heard on whether this Court must interfere with the commercial Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's application under 1 [2025] SCC Online SC 1129
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 12-A of the Act and in directing the parties to approach the DLSA, BRD for a time bound mediation.
8. The learned Senior Counsels are in unison in stating that the commercial Court should have allowed the application under Section 12-A of the Act without referring the parties to such mediation if it was satisfied that the plaintiff, in seeking the interim prayer, was not trying to bypass the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation and settlement, and that the commercial Court, in rejecting the application, and referring the parties to mediation, has evolved a hybrid solution which will not be permissible when the suit is filed after 20.08.2022. This Court, in the light of this submission, is of the considered view that the plaintiff must succeed in its appeal in COMAP No.534/2025 as should the defendant in COMAP No.530/2025 as regards the commercial Court's
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR decision to reject the application under Section 12-A of the Act and refer the parties to the mediation.
9. The next question for consideration is:
whether this Court must interfere with the commercial Court's ex parte order injuncting the defendant from using the trademark 'GOBOULT', and if this Court must interfere, the terms upon which such interference must be.
10. Sri Udaya Holla and Sri Dhyan Chinappa submit that this Court must intervene for these reasons.
10.1 The defendant has the benefit of a registered trademark and hence the advantage of the prima facie validity of such trademark as contemplated under Section 31 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court has not injuncted the defendant from using the trademark 'GOBOULT' and that this becomes undeniable with the expressed clarification in this regard.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR 10.2 The defendant's trademark is registered in the year 2024 and it is in the business of selling different gadgets including headphones under this trademark. The defendant has continued its business under the registered trademark 'GOBOULT' from the month of May 2025 and its sales turnover is over Rs.188.94 Crores with the market spend during this period in excess of Rs.80.91 Crores under this trademark.
10.3 The commercial Court, without a due opportunity to the defendant, could not have found that it is unable to anticipate any type of reciprocal inconvenience if interim order is granted and that the defendant can demonstrate that the injunction order affects its workforce which more than 650 persons.
11. Sri Udaya Holla and Sri Dhyan Chinappa also contend the following on why this Court must interfere with the commercial Court's order granting temporary injunction:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR [a] it was incumbent upon the commercial Court, as has been the consistent view of this Court underscored in 'Vedant Fashions Private Limited v. Smt. Rajul Devi [W.P. Nos.33158/2015 and 33300/2014 disposed of on 11.07.2014], to reason why it was of the opinion that the delay in granting injunction would defeat the very purpose of granting injunction after service of notice, but the commercial Court has not assigned any such reason.
[b] the plaintiff is seeking equitable relief of temporary injunction and as such was required to be equitable in disclosing the fact that the defendant had filed caveat with all the jurisdictional Courts. [c] the plaintiff has invoked the commercial Court's jurisdiction despite knowing that the defendant has closed down its
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR registered office within its jurisdiction and has its registered office presently within the jurisdiction of the commercial Courts, Bengaluru Urban District.
12. Sri S S Naganand, refuting these submissions, submits that the defendant, in the proceedings with the Delhi High Court, has stated, even as of the month of September 2025, that it only proposed to use the trademark 'GOBOULT' without actually stating that it was in the business under the trademark 'GOBOULT'. The learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court must consider the defendant's conduct in now asserting that it is in business under the afore trademark from the month of May 2025 and its conduct that it was, admittedly, using the mark - logo 'BOULT' in infringement of a third party's interest, and that this conduct disentitles the defendant from seeking any interference.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR 12.1 Sri S S Naganand next submits that the defendant cannot take any exception with the plaintiff not mentioning the caveat filed with the other commercial Courts when it cannot be disputed that, in cases of trademarks infringement and passing off action, it would be open to a plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of such Court where it has its own registered office and that the plaintiff cannot be put under any legal obligation to disclose a caveat lodged with a Court whose jurisdiction is not invoked. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the commercial Court has, while granting ex parte injunction order specifically opined that delay in granting injunction would defeat the very purpose of granting such relief.
12.2 On the plaintiff's case for injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'GOBOULT', Sri S S Naganand invites this Court's attention to the pleadings in the plaint to assert that
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR the plaintiff has the benefit of registered trademarks - 'GOBOLD', 'GOJOLT' and 'GOVO' and submits that these trademarks have been registered in the year 2021 much before the trademark registered in favour of the defendant in the year 2024 and that because the defendant's registered trademark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's prior registered trademarks and corresponds to the similar class of goods, the plaintiff is justified in bringing the suit for injunction alleging both infringement of its trademark and passing off.
13. At the outset, this Court must observe that the commercial Court has only granted ex parte injunction and it must decide on whether the plaintiff must have the benefit of such injunction to continue until the pendency of the suit. As such, all questions based on the afore submissions must be open for due consideration by the commercial Court, and this Court cannot at this stage enter into the merits of the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR rival submissions on the defendant's right to use the trademark 'GOBOULT'.
14. However, given the nature of the controversy, this Court must examine the merits of the defendant's grievance based on the possible hardship that could be visited if there is a sudden disruption in its business because of the ex parte interim injunction. As is exposited in Vedanta Fashions Limited supra, and reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in 'Smt. Supriya Shrinate v. M/s. MRT Music ORS' in Commercial Appeal No.460/2022 [which is decided on 08.11.2022], the commercial Court granting ex parte injunction cannot be bald or laconic in reasoning that the purpose of granting injunction would be defeated if it is not granted immediately and notice is issued to the defendants.
15. The commercial Court has indeed observed that the delay in granting interim relief would defeat the purpose of granting injunction, but
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR this finding is not backed by reasons which justify the conclusion. A statement in itself will not by itself supply reasons. This Court must opine that in the matters of the present nature, this requirement to reason that the delay in granting relief would defeat the very purpose of granting such relief assumes significance as it can impact businesses.
16. The defendant's specific case is that it has been in the business under the registered trademark 'GOBOULT' from the month of May 2025 and that its sales turnover under this trademark for the months between May 2025 and September, 2025 [26.09.2025] is Rs.188.94 Crores and that it has spent Rs.80.91 Crores in marketing under its registered trademark 'GOBOULT'. The defendant's further case is that because it cannot continue business under its afore trademark, its workforce would be under duress. These are material circumstances which must receive due consideration at this stage, and these aspects
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR will have to examined in the context of the veracity and the import of these assertions.
17. In the light of the afore, this Court is of the considered view that there is reason for interference with the commercial Court's order granting ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from using its trademark 'GOBOULT' but this interference must be on terms that are just and that enable an early decision on the application. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Company Appeals in COMAP Nos.530/2025 and 534/2025 are disposed of on the following terms:
[a] The plaintiff's application under Section 12-A of the commercial Courts Act is allowed and the commercial Court's direction vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 to the plaintiff to approach
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR the DLSA, BRD is modified dispensing with the pre-institution mediation and settlement.
[b] The commercial Court's order granting ex parte injunction vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 is modified permitting the defendant to continue its business under its trademark 'GOBOULT' in Class - 9 and 35 Goods and Services subject to:
• the Commercial Court's order on the pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, and • filing with the commercial Court weekly accounts for its business under this trademark for the period commencing from the date of the suit till the date as may be fixed by the commercial Court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB COMAP No. 530 of 2025 C/W COMAP No. 534 of 2025 HC-KAR [c] The commercial Court is called upon to dispose of the pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction expeditiously but in any event before 10.11.2025 directing the plaintiff and the defendant to assist the commercial Court in such expeditious decision.
[d] The defendant shall appear before the commercial Court on the next scheduled date of hearing [15.10.2025] and complete its pleadings on such date or any such further time that the commercial Court may allow.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AN/-