The court emphasized the need for clear reasoning in ex parte injunctions and allowed the defendant to use its registered trademark pending resolution, affirming the priority of equitable considerations in trademark disputes.

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 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 is dismissed.

Plaintiff is directed to approach DLSA, BRD for time bound mediation with the defendant and submit 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 '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