Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Asking GoBoult To Add 'Formerly BOULT' Disclaimer In Rebranded Products
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a consumer electronics brand to prominently display the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” on all products sold under its new name “GoBoult,” saying the step was necessary to prevent confusion with rival brand “GoBold.”
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha delivered the order on November 24, 2025, dismissing the appeal filed by Exotic Mile, which owns and operates the GoBoult brand, against the Commercial Court's November 10 ruling.
DPAC Ventures LLP, which sells audio devices under the brands “GoBold,” “GOVO,” and “GOJOLT,” had argued that “GoBoult” looked and sounded too similar to “GoBold.” It said this similarity could easily mislead customers on online marketplaces.
Exotic Mile said it held valid registrations for “BOULT” and “GOBOULT” and had only rebranded after a separate dispute. It argued that it was lawfully using its registered marks.
The Commercial Court had partly agreed with DPAC. It found that “GoBoult” was prima facie deceptively similar to “GoBold.” It asked Exotic Mile to add the tag “formerly BOULT,” publish a notice in a national newspaper, and file weekly sales records for products sold under the disputed name.
Upholding the direction, the High Court noted that DPAC had produced substantial material showing continuous use of the “GoBold” mark, significant branding expenditure and strong online sales. The bench observed that the Commercial Court had reasonably concluded that “GoBold” enjoyed goodwill in the market and that consumer confusion was likely, given the similarity between “GoBold” and “GoBoult.”
The court reiterated that an appellate court would not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless the view taken by the trial court was arbitrary or contrary to settled principles.
Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., it held that the Commercial Court had applied the correct legal standards in finding a prima facie case, a likelihood of confusion and a balance of convenience in GoBold's favour.
Consequently, It dismissed Exotic Mile's appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's interim order.
Case Title: Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025
For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Sri Chader Pal with Advocates Mr. Prashanth Kumar, Ms. Shristi Widge, Mr. Rishi Aneja, Ms. Vanita & Ms. Aisiri Raj For Sri Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni
For the Respondent: Senior Advocate M.S. Shyamsundar with Advocate Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi