Successive Interim Injunction Applications in Trademark Litigation: Insights from Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile

Interim injunctions are an important feature of trademark litigation, often determining whether the alleged infringing mark can continue to be used during the pendency of a suit.

In Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Exotic Mile (I.A. 25986/2025 in CS(COMM) 519/2019), the Delhi High Court was not called upon to reconsider the similarity between the competing marks. Instead, it examined a procedural issue – whether a party could maintain a successive application for interim injunction seeking substantially the same relief that had not been granted earlier. The decision reiterates the principles governing the maintainability of successive interim injunction applications and the limited circumstances in which such applications may be entertained.

Background

Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the BOAT trademark, instituted a suit against Exotic Mile alleging trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement arising from the defendant’s use of the mark BOULT.

At the initial stage, the Court granted an ex parte interim injunction. Subsequently, after hearing both parties, it disposed of the interim applications and continued the injunction in respect of certain device marks and related rights.

The defendant challenged the order before the Division Bench and informed the Court that it had adopted the mark GOBOULT. The Division Bench observed that GOBOULT had not formed part of the original proceedings and that any challenge to the new mark would have to be pursued independently.

Following the disposal of the appeal, Imagine Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed a fresh application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the word mark BOULT. The plaintiff contended that the omission of the word mark from the operative portion of the earlier order was inadvertent and sought an injunction against the word mark through the fresh application.

Issue Before the Court

The principal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff could maintain a second application for interim injunction seeking substantially the same relief without establishing a material change in circumstances or undue hardship.

The plaintiff contended that the omission of the word mark BOULT from the earlier operative order was accidental and that the observations made by the Division Bench constituted a change in circumstances warranting a fresh application. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was seeking to reopen an issue that had already been decided and that the appropriate remedy, if the earlier order required correction, was to seek review, clarification or appellate relief.

Findings of the Court

The Court dismissed the application. It reiterated that although the Code of Civil Procedure does not expressly prohibit successive applications for interim injunction, such applications are maintainable only in exceptional circumstances. A subsequent application must be supported by a material change in circumstances arising after the earlier order or by undue hardship resulting from that order. A party cannot seek substantially the same relief through a fresh application merely because such relief had not been granted earlier.

Applying these principles, the Court found that neither requirement had been satisfied. The observations of the Division Bench merely clarified the position emerging from the earlier order and did not amount to a material change in circumstances.

The Court further observed that if the plaintiff believed that the omission of the word mark BOULT from the operative portion of the earlier order was inadvertent, the appropriate course was to seek review, clarification, modification or appellate relief. The plaintiff had not pursued any of these remedies and instead filed a fresh application almost six years after the earlier order seeking substantially the same relief.

The Court also rejected the plea of undue hardship. It noted that the defendant had consistently maintained that it had discontinued the use of BOULT, adopted GOBOULT, and expressed its willingness to remove residual online references to the earlier mark. Accordingly, the Court found no ground to entertain the successive application and dismissed it.

Key Takeaways

The judgment reiterates that successive applications for interim injunction are maintainable only in limited circumstances. A party seeking such relief must establish a material change in circumstances or undue hardship arising after the earlier order.

The decision also clarifies that where a party believes an earlier order contains an omission or requires correction, the appropriate remedies are review, clarification, modification or appeal. A fresh interim injunction application cannot be used to seek substantially the same relief that was not granted earlier.

Written By Vijayalakshmi R