IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 617 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. EXOTIC MILE PRIVATE LIMITED (A PRIVATE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013)

HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT: B-67 WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NORTH WEST DELHI - 110 052 HAVING ITS SALES UNIT AT:

SURVEY No.26, KALKUNTE AGARHARA VILLAGE ANUGONDAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA - 560 067 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED Digitally signed by REPRESENTATIVE SRIDEVI S MR. SANTOSH KUMAR HB Location:

…APPELLANT High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI CHADER PAL., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W MR. PRASHANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, MS. SHRISTI WIDGE, MR. RISHI ANEJA, MS. VANITA & MS. AISIRI RAJ, ADVOCATES FOR SRI MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. 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, S.NO. 118, 121 AND 551 JIGANI, 1^ST PHASE JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105.

BENGALURU RURAL.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.2 IN COMMERCIAL O.S. NO.199/2025 (ANNEXURE-A1) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT IT PARTY ALLOWS I.A.NO.2 IN COMMERCIAL OS NO.199/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant (hereafter the defendant) has filed the present appeal challenging an order dated 10.11.2025 [impugned order passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge [Commercial Court] in Com.OS.No.199/2025, whereby the court partly allowed the interlocutory application (IA No.2) filed by the respondent and, inter alia, directed as under:

"Defendant company shall a) Prefix or suffix the word (formerly BOULT)

while using, selling or offering for sale, soliciting, advertising, displaying or in any manner dealing in goods or services under the mark GoBoult or any other mark similar to the plaintiff's trade mark GoBold b) Publish a public notice in a leading nationwide newspaper as (formerly BOULT) in the matter of use of the mark GoBoult or any other mark similar to the plaintiff's trade mark GoBold c) File weekly accounts for its business under this trademark till disposal of suit.

No order as to costs."

2. The respondent (hereafter ‘the plaintiff') had filed the aforementioned suit (Com.OS.No.199/2025), inter alia seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein from using, selling or offering for sale, soliciting, advertising, displaying or in any manner dealing in goods or services under the mark "GoBoult or any other mark, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "GoBold" and thereby restraining the defendant from committing any acts of passing off and infringement of its trademark.

3. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of offering a diverse range of sound and audio devices, viz., earbuds, Bluetooth speakers, Bluetooth earphones and wired earphones. The appellant is also engaged in manufacturing similar goods.

4. The plaintiff claims that keeping in mind the evolving preferences of younger demographic, in the year 2021, it had registered the trademarks 'GoBold', 'GOJOLT', 'GOVO' and the

device mark in class 9.

5. The plaintiff claims that since the year 2021 – that is after registration of the trademarks – it has been honestly and uninterruptedly using the trademark “GoBold” in relation to its