Same Relief Can’t Be Re-Agitated Without Changed Circumstances: Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Injunction Application Filed By Audio Devices Brand ‘boAt’

The Court was hearing an application filed by Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd., owner of the BOAT/boAt trademarks, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an interim injunction against Exotic Mile from using the wordmark BOULT or any deceptively similar mark.

A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed: “It is a settled law that a second injunction application should not be entertained on identical set of facts and the exceptions carved out are ‘changed circumstances’ and/or ‘undue hardship’ and to the extent of the said legal proposition, reliance by Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of this Court in Rakesh Madan (supra), is correct.”

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appeared for the plaintiff, while Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for the defendant.

Background

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. had instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant’s use of the wordmark BOULT and device marks alleged to be deceptively similar to its registered BOAT/boAt trademarks. An ex parte ad interim injunction was initially granted, but the Single Judge later disposed of the injunction and vacation applications by restraining the defendant only from using certain device marks and the tagline UNPLUG YOURSELF.

The defendant challenged that judgment before the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the injunction to the extent it related to the device marks but set aside the restraint against the tagline. During the appeal, the defendant stated that it had discontinued use of the impugned marks, except certain device marks which it intended to phase out, and had transitioned to GOBOULT. The Division Bench clarified that GOBOULT had not been challenged before the Single Judge and any challenge to it would constitute a separate cause of action.

After the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the wordmark BOULT. It argued that omission of the wordmark from the earlier operative order was inadvertent, whereas the defendant contended that the application sought the same relief earlier not granted, was barred by issue estoppel and amounted to abuse of process.

Court’s Observations

The High Court noted that the controversy was narrow and concerned whether the plaintiff could maintain a fresh injunction application against the wordmark BOULT after the earlier injunction order had not extended restraint to that wordmark.

The Court recorded that the ex parte ad interim order had restrained the defendant from using the wordmark BOULT as well as device marks. However, when the earlier injunction and vacation applications were finally decided, the restraint granted was confined to specified device marks and the tagline. The Division Bench later affirmed the order only to the extent of the device marks and clarified that there was no restraint against GOBOULT.

The Court held that the earlier judgment clearly did not extend the injunction to the wordmark BOULT or any other deceptively similar mark. It also noted that the Division Bench had recorded that the plaintiff had neither sought modification nor clarification of the earlier judgment nor filed any cross-appeal.

The Bench observed that it was “as clear as day” that there was no injunction qua the wordmark BOULT in the earlier judgment, yet the plaintiff did not seek modification, review or clarification at the relevant time. The Court held that the plaintiff waited for six years to file the present application, and that the explanation that clarity emerged only from the Division Bench judgment could not be accepted.

The Court then considered the legal position on second injunction applications. Referring to Rakesh Madan v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (2009), it held that although the CPC does not contain an express bar against a second injunction application, such an application can be entertained only where changed circumstances or undue hardship are pleaded and established.

The Bench observed: “One cannot gloss over the observations of the Court in paragraph 14, where it was observed that without any change in circumstances or without any case of undue hardship being made out, the Court is not competent to, in the same facts, grant an interlocutory injunction, which was declined earlier. Caution has to be exercised that such power does not lead to filing applications before successive presiding officers, and there is no element of wager to be attached to such successive applications. Therefore, applying this very judgment to the present case, the instant application can be entertained only if Plaintiff pleads and establishes a case of changed circumstances or undue hardship.”

On changed circumstances, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the Division Bench judgment constituted a change because it clarified that the earlier injunction was confined to device marks. The Court held that a changed circumstance must involve some altered or additional fact or development, and that a mere alleged omission or oversight in the earlier judgment could not justify re-agitating the same relief.

The Bench held that there was no ambiguity in the earlier judgment, as a plain reading showed that there was no interim injunction against the wordmark BOULT. It held that the Division Bench had only referred to the existing position as a matter of record and had not created a new circumstance in law.

The Court observed: “As for the changed circumstance, Defendant is right that this argument will entail some altered or additional facts or development for the Plaintiff to seek the relief not granted earlier, and mere omission or oversight in the judgment dated 21.01.2020 cannot be a ground to re-agitate the same relief in the second application. On the same touchstone, the judgment of the Division Bench cannot be construed as a change in circumstance, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed to the extent of the device marks. Pertinently, even here the argument is not that the Division Bench has made some new observations giving rise to a cause to file a second application. The argument is that only after the Division Bench observed that the Single Judge had restricted the interim injunction to device marks, clarity came on the scope and ambit of the said judgment. This argument is both factually and legally untenable. On a factual note, there is no ambiguity or confusion in the judgment dated 21.01.2020 inasmuch as on a plain reading, there was no interim injunction for the wordmark BOULT. The Division Bench has only referred to this as a fact and matter of record in reference to the judgment impugned before it and stated the obvious as emerging from the judgment and cannot constitute ‘changed circumstance’ in law.”

On undue hardship, the Court found that there were no specific pleadings in the application. It noted that the plaintiff had relied on screenshots of e-commerce websites to allege continued use of BOULT, but the defendant had denied this and stated that the documents related to discontinued or archived listings. The plaintiff did not rebut this in rejoinder.

The Court further held that the ground of phonetic similarity between BOAT and BOULT was not new, as it had already been taken in the first injunction application. Since no injunction had been granted against the wordmark earlier, the same ground could not be used to obtain the same relief through a second application.

The Court observed: “The only other ground asserted is that the wordmark BOULT is deceptively similar to the BOAT mark and once Courts have found phonetic similarity with the impugned device marks as the test for passing off, on the same yardstick the wordmark BOULT ought to be restrained. Reading of the first application shows that phonetic similarity was the ground taken by the Plaintiff in the first application i.e. I.A. 13041/2019 also for the wordmark BOULT, but no injunction was granted with respect the said mark and/or any other similar mark. In effect this application is primarily founded on the grievance that non-grant of injunction qua the wordmark was a mere omission due to oversight and inadvertence. Paragraph 17 of the application is testament to this fact and is in itself pointer to the fact that identical relief is being claimed in the present application and is enough to dismiss this application.”

The Court also noted that before filing the present application, the plaintiff had filed a clarification application seeking a declaration that the earlier judgment had injuncted the wordmark BOULT and other deceptively similar marks. That application was withdrawn unconditionally without liberty. The Court held that the present application sought the same relief circuitously and could not be entertained.

Referring to S. Malla Reddy v. Future Builders Cooperative Housing Society (2013), K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (1963), the Court held that filing subsequent applications for the same relief on the same facts, after the relief had once been declined, constitutes abuse of process.

The Bench further noted that the defendant had informed the Division Bench that it had discontinued use of the impugned marks, except certain device marks which were also to be phased out, and had transitioned to GOBOULT. It also recorded the defendant’s statement that if any stray listings were found, it was willing to assist in taking them down to address any residual online presence of BOULT.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to plead or establish changed circumstances or undue hardship for maintaining a second injunction application seeking restraint against the wordmark BOULT.

The Court dismissed the application filed by boAt seeking an interim injunction against the use of the wordmark BOULT.

Cause Title: Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5374)

Appearances

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with Advocates Tushar Jarwal, Suman Yadav, Nikhita K. Suri, Arunabha Gananguli, Atishree Sood, Gurudas Khurana, Raghav Dutt and Om Shelat.

Defendant: Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal with Advocates Sharabh Shrivastava, Taaniyaa Dograa, Sarah Haque and Krishnesh Bapat.

Click here to read/download Judgment