A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed Exotic Mile Private Limited’s commercial appeal, leaving intact an earlier order that forced the audio-electronics company to publicly clarify its branding and file weekly business accounts. The brief but sharply argued hearing saw both sides trade accusations of bad faith, with the Bench repeatedly returning to one simple question: Will an ordinary buyer get confused?
Background
The dispute traces back to a lawsuit filed by DPAC Ventures LLP, makers of sound devices under the brand “GoBold”. They alleged that Exotic Mile's recently adopted mark “GoBoult” was deceptively close-too close-to their own line of “GoBold”, “GOJOLT” and “GOVO” products.
DPAC told the Commercial Court that they had built substantial goodwill since 2021, backed by crores spent on advertising and rising sales figures. Exotic Mile countered strongly, saying it had been in the market since 2017 using “BOULT” legitimately and only shifted to “GoBoult” in 2025 to avoid a separate legal clash with another company. A senior counsel for Exotic Mile argued, almost with a hint of frustration, that “we are using our own registered trademark; how can that be infringement?”
The lower court, however, found DPAC’s case persuasive enough to grant a partial injunction. It directed Exotic Mile to always use the phrase “formerly BOULT”, issue a public notice, and submit weekly accounts of business done under the disputed mark. Exotic Mile challenged that order before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru noted that the appellate court’s role was limited when reviewing discretionary orders. “The bench observed, ‘Unless the order is arbitrary or perverse, we cannot replace the trial court’s discretion with our own.’”
The judges went through the Commercial Court’s reasoning and the material on record: photos of DPAC’s products, their advertising expenditure exceeding ₹38 crore, and substantial profits between 2021-2025. These, the court said, clearly indicated that “GoBold” had developed market recognition.
More importantly, the Bench stressed that passing off is not defeated merely because a party has obtained a trademark registration. What mattered was the practical likelihood of confusion among regular online shoppers-those browsing Flipkart or Amazon late at night, as one judge remarked casually.
The order summarised it succinctly: the Commercial Court had found a prima facie case of misrepresentation, and this High Court saw no fault in that finding. “The bench observed, ‘The marks are similar, the products are similar, and confusion is a reasonably possible outcome.’”
Decision
Concluding that there was “no perversity, no misdirection, and no reason to interfere”, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Exotic Mile's appeal in full. The earlier directions-using “formerly BOULT”, issuing a public notice, and filing weekly accounts-remain in force until the commercial suit is decided.
Case Title: Exotic Mile Private Limited vs. DPAC Ventures LLP
Case Number: COMAP No. 617 of 2025
Case Type: Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1-A), Commercial Courts Act
Decision Date: 24 November 2025
