Boult Audio’s rebranding to GoBoult in August 2025 was presented as a growth strategy, but Delhi HC documents shows it stemmed from a long-running trademark dispute with rival boAt dating back to 2019

On September 15, the Delhi HC barred Boult (now GoBoult) from using its old trademark, ruling that “Boult” and “boAt” were deceptively similar in name, logo, and overall branding, which could mislead consumers

While boAt objected to the new name under the “safe distance principle,” the court clarified that there was no injunction against GoBoult, leaving the company free to operate under its rebranded identity

D2C consumer electric brand Boult Audio’s much-publicised rebranding to GoBoult last month was pitched as the start of a fresh chapter. At the time, the brand’s cofounder and CEO Varun Gupta told Inc42 that the new name reflected its ambitions to move “upmarket”, build a stronger offline retail presence, expand internationally, and prepare for a public listing.

The narrative painted the rebranding as a strategic decision for growth. However, Delhi High Court (HC) documents now show that the move came in the backdrop of an ongoing legal battle between GoBoult and boAt, that went on for more than five years in Delhi High Court.

In August, Boult rebranded itself to GoBoult. On September 15, a two-judge bench of the Delhi HC, in an order, said that Boult and boAt are deceptively similar – both in name and logo – and could mislead customers. It, therefore, barred GoBoult from using its old trademark.

The Delhi HC bench also addressed the status of the new brand name, GoBoult. While it was not part of the original petition in 2019, boAt objected to its use during the hearing on the appeal petition filed by GoBoult, arguing that it violated the “safe distance principle”.

The safe distance doctrine requires a company found guilty of infringement to keep a sufficient distance from the rival’s marks when adopting a new one.

However, the Delhi HC said that since there was no existing injunction, direct or implied, against GoBoult. The startup was free to use the new name.

Inc42 reached out to GoBoult and IPO-bound boAt for comments on the matter. The story will be updated based on their responses.

boAt Vs Boult: The Legal Drama

The legal fight began in 2019, when boAt sued GoBoult (Boult then) claiming that the latter’s branding was deliberately designed to look and sound like the former.

The Sameer Mehta-led company pointed to multiple similarities – both names were short and phonetically close (‘boAt’ vs ‘Boult’), both used triangular logos, and their taglines were also alike – Boult’s “Unplug Yourself” and boAt’s “Plug Into Nirvana”.

boAt argued that Boult was trying to ride on its growing reputation in the booming audio and wearables market.

In January 2020, a single-judge bench of the Delhi HC issued an interim injunction against Boult. The order stopped the D2C audio brand from using certain disputed marks and specifically restrained it from using the tagline “Unplug Yourself”.

Notably, boAt in its petition had not objected to the use of the tagline. However, the judge ruled that the similarities in branding created a high chance of confusing customers, especially since boAt had already invested heavily in sales and advertising by then.

However, Boult challenged this order, arguing that its marks were legally registered, independently created, and that its target buyers were discerning enough not to be misled.

After years of back-and-forth, a two-judge bench of the Delhi HC announced a mixed verdict in September. While it said that Boult could use its tagline “Unplug Yourself”, it sided with boAt on the issue of similarity of trademark. The bench said that boAt and Boult were deceptively similar, visually and phonetically, and using them in the same product categories could easily confuse consumers.

It upheld the injunction stopping GoBoult from using its old trademark. This effectively barred the company from returning to its original brand identity.

Edited by Vinaykumar Rai