Another trademark dispute is making headlines in India—this time over a company’s brand name. Recently, GoBold filed a case against GoBoult (formerly known as Boult) after the latter rebranded itself under the new name. GoBoult vs GoBold trademark case. The conflict is a striking example of how even a single word can spark a serious legal battle, reflecting how companies are becoming increasingly cautious about their brand identity and market presence. More importantly, it underscores the critical role of trademark protection and legal registration in safeguarding a brand’s value. But when it comes to this case, there’s much more to uncover. If you want to understand the full story, keep reading.
What Led to the GoBoult vs GoBold trademark case in India?
To understand this GoBoult vs GoBold trademark case better, it’s important to look at its starting point. The dispute began when Boult, a well-known Indian wearables and consumer electronics brand, rebranded itself as GoBoult. Founded in 2017, Boult has built a strong presence in the market with its earbuds, headphones, smartwatches, and speakers. However, this rebranding move was not welcomed by DPAC Ventures LLP, which owns registered trademarks for GoBold, GoJolt, and GOVO. DPAC is recognized for its speakers, soundbars, and audio accessories, and its brands have earned a solid position in India’s electronics market, particularly in the mid-range and affordable audio segment. The similarity between “GoBoult” and “GoBold” sparked the current legal conflict, raising concerns about brand identity and consumer confusion.
Read Also: US Tech Firm Natsoft Drags Hexaware Into $500M Patent Fight
Why Did DPAC Ventures Sue Over Trademark Confusion?
Despite the rebranding, GoBold stood firm and filed a case against GoBoult in the Bengaluru Commercial Court in August 2025.
- In its suit, GoBold (DPAC Ventures LLP) claimed that the name “GoBoult” is strikingly similar to “GoBold”, both in sound and appearance, and could easily mislead consumers into believing the two brands were connected.
- The company further accused GoBoult of unfair competition, alleging that it manipulated online search results so that customers looking for GoBold products were redirected to GoBoult instead.
- According to DPAC, this practice not only diverted business but also diluted its brand value and damaged the goodwill it had built over the years.
And in the lawsuit, there were some demands of DPAC. They wanted an immediate injunction to stop Boult from using the “GoBoult” name or any similar trademark. It also requested a ban on any activities of products under the contested mark. Additionally, while the exact compensation claim has not been made public, DPAC is expected to pursue damages for loss of goodwill and unfair advantage, along with litigation costs.
What Made the Bengaluru Court Issue an Injunction Against GoBoult?
The Bengaluru Commercial Court issued an injunction against GoBoult after finding that DPAC Ventures (GoBold) had a strong case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that GoBoult and GoBold are visually and phonetically similar, which could confuse consumers. It also considered allegations that GoBoult was manipulating online search results to divert customers. Since such actions could cause irreparable harm to GoBold’s goodwill and brand reputation, the court restrained GoBoult from using the name until further orders and directed both parties to undergo mediation.
Conclusion
The GoBoult vs GoBold trademark case shows how even a minor change in a brand name can lead to major legal consequences. The case highlights the growing importance of trademark protection, brand identity, and fair competition in India’s fast-growing consumer electronics market. As the matter proceeds, it serves as a reminder that strong IP compliance is not just a legal necessity but also a key factor in protecting long-term business growth.