CS(Comm) 519/2019 Judgement dated 06 July 2026
Brief Background

1. The dispute concerns trademark rights over the competing marks ‘boAt’ and ‘BOULT’ for smart wearables and audio products, including headphones, earphones and smartwatches.
2. Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff), owner of the ‘boAt’ brand, filed a suit against Exotic Mile (Defendant), owner of the ‘BOULT’ brand, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement and dilution.

What did the Ld. Single Judge rule?

1. At the initial stage, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant from using ‘BOULT’ along with its device marks and the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF”.
2. By order dated 21 January 2020, the Ld. Single Judge restrained only specified device marks and the tagline but did not expressly restrain use of the standalone word mark ‘BOULT’ or other deceptively similar marks.

What was the ruling of the Division Bench (DB)?

1. The Defendant appealed the order before the Division Bench, which stayed its operation on 27 January 2020 while observing that the competing marks were visually and phonetically different.
2. During the appeal, the Defendant commercially rebranded from ‘BOULT’ to ‘GOBOULT’ and informed the Division Bench of the same.
3. By judgment dated 15 September 2025, the Division Bench affirmed the injunction against the device marks in view of the Defendant’s statements.
4. The DB set aside the restraint on the tagline “UNPLUG YOURSELF”, holding that such relief had not been specifically prayed for by the Plaintiff.
5. The Division Bench also noted that the impugned order did not restrain the standalone word mark ‘BOULT’ or any other marks deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s ‘boAt’ trademarks.
   1. The Division Bench observed that the Plaintiff had neither sought review, modification or clarification of the impugned order nor filed a cross-appeal against the limited injunction.
   2. Applying Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., it confined itself to the injunction actually granted by the Ld. Single Judge and declined to expand its scope.
   3. It further clarified that the Defendant’s use of ‘GOBOULT’ would constitute a fresh cause of action and was not under challenge in the appeal.
6. After the appellate decision, the Plaintiff filed an application seeking clarification of the Ld. Single Judge’s order dated 21 January 2020, which was withdrawn by the Plaintiff vide Order dated 16th October 2025, after the Ld. Single Judge expressed her doubts on its’ maintainability.

Present Judgement
Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a successive injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC, seeking restraint against:

1. The Defendant’s word mark ‘BOULT’;
2. The Defendant’s use of any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s ‘boAt’ trademarks;

The Plaintiff argued that exclusion of the standalone word mark ‘BOULT’ from the earlier injunction was an inadvertent omission, as the Court had found it phonetically similar to ‘boAt’. It also contended that the Division Bench’s clarification on the scope of the injunction amounted to a changed circumstance justifying a fresh application.
The Defendant opposed the application as an abuse of process, arguing that the Plaintiff was seeking relief already declined in 2020 and had neither sought timely review/clarification nor filed a cross-appeal. It also relied on the doctrine of merger, contending that the appellate judgment governed the parties’ rights and could not be rewritten through a fresh application.
The Court dismissed the application, holding that a successive injunction application is maintainable only upon a material change in circumstances or undue hardship, neither of which was shown. It also accepted the Defendant’s plea of issue estoppel, as the relief sought was substantially identical to the relief earlier considered and not granted.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Successive injunction applications are not maintainable as a matter of course. A party seeking the same interim relief again must show a genuine change in circumstances or undue hardship; otherwise, the application may be treated as an abuse of process.
2. Delay can be fatal in interim relief. The Plaintiff waited nearly six years after the order dated 21 January 2020 before seeking relief against the standalone word mark BOULT, which weighed against grant of injunction.
3. Estoppel can bar repeated interim relief. Where substantially the same relief has already been considered and not granted, a party may be prevented from seeking it again on the same factual basis.