Karnataka High Court Upholds Mandatory “Formerly BOULT” Disclaimer on GoBoult Products to Prevent Consumer Confusion

Karnataka High Court Upholds Mandatory “Formerly BOULT” Disclaimer on GoBoult Products to Prevent Consumer Confusion

Introduction

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an interim order directing the consumer electronics brand GoBoult to prominently use the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” on all products sold under its rebranded name. The Court held that the disclaimer was necessary to prevent consumer confusion with the rival brand GoBold, particularly in the context of online marketplaces where purchasing decisions are made quickly and with imperfect recollection.

The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. M. Poonacha on November 24, 2025, while dismissing an appeal filed by Exotic Mile Private Limited against an order of the Commercial Court.

Factual Background

DPAC Ventures LLP markets consumer audio products under the brands “GoBold,” “GOVO,” and “GOJOLT.” It claimed continuous and substantial use of the mark “GoBold,” supported by significant branding expenditure, online sales data, and market presence.

Exotic Mile Private Limited operates the brand “BOULT” and later adopted the mark “GoBoult” following a rebranding exercise triggered by a separate dispute. Exotic Mile asserted that it held valid trademark registrations for “BOULT” and “GOBOULT” and was therefore entitled to use the rebranded name without restriction.

DPAC Ventures alleged that the mark “GoBoult” was visually and phonetically similar to “GoBold” and that such similarity was likely to mislead consumers, especially on e-commerce platforms.

Procedural Background

DPAC Ventures approached the Commercial Court seeking interim relief against the use of the mark “GoBoult.” By an order dated November 10, 2025, the Commercial Court held that “GoBoult” was prima facie deceptively similar to “GoBold.”

While the Commercial Court did not restrain Exotic Mile from using the mark altogether, it directed the company to prominently add the disclaimer “formerly BOULT,” publish a public notice in a national newspaper, and submit weekly sales records of products sold under the disputed mark. Aggrieved by these directions, Exotic Mile filed a commercial appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in holding that “GoBoult” is prima facie deceptively similar to “GoBold.”

2. Whether directing the use of the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” amounted to an arbitrary or excessive restriction on the appellant’s trademark rights.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary interim order passed by the Commercial Court.

Contentions of the Parties

Exotic Mile contended that it was the registered proprietor of the marks “BOULT” and “GOBOULT” and that lawful registration entitled it to use the rebranded mark. It argued that the Commercial Court failed to give due weight to its statutory rights and that the imposed disclaimer caused undue commercial prejudice.

DPAC Ventures, on the other hand, submitted that it had established prior and continuous use of the mark “GoBold,” along with substantial goodwill. It argued that the similarity between “GoBold” and “GoBoult” was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers and that the disclaimer was a minimal and proportionate measure to safeguard public interest and prevent passing off.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court noted that the Commercial Court had carefully examined the evidence produced by DPAC Ventures, including proof of use, branding expenditure, and online sales. It observed that the trial court had reasonably concluded that “GoBold” enjoyed goodwill in the market and that the similarity between “GoBold” and “GoBoult” could mislead consumers.

The Bench reiterated the settled principle that appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless the view taken is arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled legal principles. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., the Court held that the Commercial Court had correctly applied the tests of prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience.

The Court found that the direction to add the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” did not prohibit the appellant from carrying on business but merely sought to reduce consumer confusion during the transition phase following rebranding. Such a direction, the Court held, was a reasonable and proportionate interim measure.

Decision

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Exotic Mile Private Limited and upheld the Commercial Court’s interim order. The direction requiring the use of the disclaimer “formerly BOULT,” along with allied compliance measures, was allowed to continue. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the interim stage and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit on merits.

In this case the appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Sri Chader Pal with Mr. Prashanth Kumar, Ms. Shristi Widge, Mr. Rishi Aneja, Ms. Vanita & Ms. Aisiri Raj, Advocates For Sri Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Senior Advocate M.S. Shyamsundar with Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi, Advocate.