-
by sayum
19 December 2025 7:58 AM
There Being No Prayer for Injunction, No Relief Could Have Been Granted” — In a judgment laden with clear principles on trademark law and judicial restraint, the Delhi High Court set aside an injunction against the use of the tagline ‘Unplug Yourself’ by BOULT (Exotic Mile), while affirming that the logos and brand identifiers used by BOULT were deceptively similar to boAt’s (Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd) trademarks. The ruling underscores a foundational tenet of civil litigation:
“The court could not have granted a relief not sought by the plaintiff.”
This decision may reshape how interim orders are passed in intellectual property suits, especially where specific reliefs are not expressly pleaded.
“Unplug Yourself Was Never in the Suit”: No Prayer, No Injunction, Says Court
At the heart of the dispute was the interim injunction granted by a Single Judge restraining Exotic Mile (EM), owners of BOULT, from using not only certain marks and logos but also the tagline “Unplug Yourself”. However, on appeal, the Division Bench led by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul noted that:
“IMPL never sought any injunction against the use of the tag line UNPLUG YOURSELF by EM. The learned Single Judge could not, therefore, have granted such an injunction.”
Drawing a strict line around the scope of judicial discretion, the Court quashed the part of the order that had restrained EM from using the tagline, citing established authority from the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) 9 SCC 579, which held that courts must not travel beyond the pleadings. The Bench made it unequivocally clear:
“Relief beyond that prayed cannot be granted on sympathetic grounds either.”
Thus, the injunction against the tagline was struck down, restoring BOULT’s freedom to use the phrase “Unplug Yourself”.
“BOULT Logos Are Phonetically and Visually Similar to boAt Marks”: Court Upholds Injunction Against , , Devices
On the substantive issue of passing off, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s injunction against EM’s use of three impugned marks. The High Court was categorical:
“The injunction against the use, by EM, of the marks , and has been granted by the learned Single Judge by applying the correct principles.”
The Court accepted that BOULT and boAt were deceptively similar marks, both phonetically and visually. Notably, the Bench reasoned:
“BOAT and BOULT being quite phonetically similar, a consumer would not have a correct complete and reflection when he goes to buy the product.”
The comparison went beyond just pronunciation. The Court found:
The logos of both parties were triangular.
The common use of “PLUG” in taglines (Unplug Yourself vs Plug Into Nirvana) was likely to enhance confusion.
EM’s product name “Boult Bass Bud” was confusingly close to IMPL’s “boAt Bass Heads”.
Hence, it found sufficient grounds to affirm the injunction against the impugned marks on the basis of passing off, while noting that no infringement claim could be made due to EM’s registration.
“Use of ‘GOBOULT’ Not Barred by Any Existing Injunction”: Court Leaves New Trademark Open for Future Litigation
While addressing EM’s intention to move forward with the use of the mark “GOBOULT”, the Court clarified that: “There is no injunction against the use, by EM, of the mark GOBOULT.”
The Court observed that IMPL had not prayed for a ban on “GOBOULT”, nor had the Single Judge imposed one. The ruling leaves the door open for future litigation, stating:
“If IMPL regards the mark GOBOULT as also being deceptively similar, it would be for IMPL to challenge the use of the mark separately in accordance with law.”
Importantly, the Bench made no comment on the merits or legality of the mark GOBOULT itself, signalling restraint and jurisdictional discipline.
“Added Matter May Enhance Confusion, Not Just Avoid It”: Tagline, Product Names, Colour Scheme All Relevant in Passing Off
Responding to EM’s argument that additional factors like taglines and packaging could not form the basis of the injunction, the Court dismissed the submission, observing:
“While it is open to the defendant in a passing off suit to argue that, owing to the added matter, the likelihood of confusion is diminished, it may also be that the similarity of the added matter enhances the likelihood of confusion.”
The Court also observed that the products in question — wireless earphones and audio gadgets — are widely used and not so technical as to exclude general consumers. On this, the Bench stated: “The products are not ‘high technology’ products... They are purchased in ordinary household commerce.”
In essence, the ruling asserts that deceptive similarity is to be judged holistically, and not just based on one element of branding.
“Likelihood of Confusion, Not Actual Confusion, Is the Test in Passing Off”: Court Declines to Weigh Consumer Emails
Though both parties presented emails suggesting customer confusion or its absence, the Court reiterated the principle that:
“The plaintiff is only required to prove likelihood of confusion, and not actual confusion.”
The Court also refused to comment on disputed emails (like that of Ankit Kothari), leaving such matters to trial and evidence.
This reflects a strict adherence to legal principles over factual squabbles at the interim stage.
Precision in Pleadings is Paramount, Even in High-Value Trademark Battles
This judgment is a landmark for IP litigation, reinforcing the importance of exact pleadings, restrained judicial intervention, and a holistic approach to deceptive similarity.
It separates sympathetic narrative from justiciable claim, firmly reminding both litigants and courts that: “A judge’s discretion must not rewrite the reliefs sought, even in compelling cases.”
In affirming the injunction on the logos but lifting the one on the tagline, the Court balanced trademark protection with procedural discipline — a precedent likely to guide future brand battles in India’s digital marketplace.
Date of Decision: 15 September 2025
