Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Trademark Infringement But Permits Use Of New Mark - 2025-09-15

Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Trademark Infringement But Permits Use Of New Mark

In a significant ruling regarding intellectual property, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has partially modified an interim injunction order concerning a high-profile trademark dispute between Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd and Exotic Mile. The division bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, scrutinized the scope of judicial intervention in passing-off actions.

Case Background and Legal Conflict

The dispute centers on allegations that Exotic Mile engaged in trademark infringement and passing-off by adopting branding, logos, and taglines deceptively similar to those of Imagine Marketing’s flagship brand, boAt . Imagine Marketing, a major player in the electronic gadgets sector, secured an ex parte injunction from a learned Single Judge restraining Exotic Mile from using specific marks and the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF.” Exotic Mile challenged this, seeking to vacate the injunction while asserting its right to use the mark “GOBOULT.”

Arguments and Legal Analysis

Imagine Marketing argued that their registered trademarks and logos had acquired substantial goodwill and that Exotic Mile’s adoption of similar phonetic marks and triangular-shaped logos was a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers. Conversely, Exotic Mile contended that its branding was unique and that the common elements, such as the word “PLUG,” were generic to the industry.

A pivotal aspect of the High Court’s analysis was the limitation of the court’s powers under the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. The bench clarified that a court cannot grant relief that was never prayed for by the plaintiff. Consequently, the injunction against the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF” was quashed because Imagine Marketing had failed to include it in their formal prayer for relief.

Key Observations

The court emphasized the standards for passing-off actions, noting that:

> “The defendant must have sold its goods or offered its services in a manner which has deceived or would be likely to deceive the public into thinking that the defendant's goods or services are the plaintiff's.”

Regarding the scope of the injunction, the court noted:

> “It is for the plaintiff to choose the prayer that it seeks to make, and the Court could not have granted a relief not sought by the plaintiff.”

Addressing the new mark proposed by the appellant, the court stated:

> “Inasmuch as it never formed subject matter of the lis before the learned Single Judge, no occasion arises for us to adjudicate on whether the use of the mark GOBOULT, by EM is, or is not, liable to be injuncted.”

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court upheld the injunction regarding the disputed boAt and BOULT logos but set aside the restriction on the tagline. Crucially, the bench clarified that there is currently no operating injunction against Exotic Mile’s use of the mark “GOBOULT.” The ruling underscores that while courts have wide discretion, they must adhere strictly to the pleadings and prayers presented in the suit. For future intellectual property litigation, this serves as a reminder that the failure to articulate specific relief in the initial petition can lead to a narrow scope of protection, even when the underlying claims of passing-off are upheld.