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
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
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
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
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."
NC: 2025:KHC:39385-DB
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/-
