Successive interim injunction applications for identical relief on unchanged facts constitute an abuse of process and issue estoppel.

The Plaintiff (Imagine Marketing), owner of the "BOAT/boAt" trademarks, filed a suit for infringement and passing off against the Defendant (Exotic Mile) for using the mark "BOULT"

By an ex parte order dated 25.09.2019, the Court initially restrained the Defendant from using both the wordmark "BOULT" and specific device marks

in the final disposal of the interim injunction applications on 21.01.2020, the Single Judge found phonetic similarity between the marks but expressly restrained only the device marks and the tagline "UNPLUG YOURSELF," omitting the wordmark "BOULT" from the operative injunction

The Division Bench later affirmed the injunction regarding the device marks but noted that the wordmark "BOULT" was not injuncted by the Single Judge

After six years, the Plaintiff filed the present application (I.A. 25986/2025) seeking an interim injunction specifically against the wordmark "BOULT," alleging the previous omission was an inadvertent oversight

1. Whether a second application for interim injunction seeking the same relief (restraint of wordmark "BOULT") is maintainable after the first application was decided without granting said relief.

2. Whether the Plaintiff established "changed circumstances" or "undue hardship" sufficient to bypass the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel in interlocutory proceedings.

The court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding temporary injunctions and Rule 4 regarding the variation of such orders

The court relied on the principle that while Section 11 of the CPC (res judicata) does not strictly apply to interlocutory stages, the "principles of res judicata" do apply to prevent successive applications on the same facts, as held in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh

The court followed Rakesh Madan v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, establishing that a second injunction application is maintainable only upon showing "changed circumstances" or "undue hardship"

It also referenced the "Doctrine of Merger," noting that the Single Judge’s order had merged into the Division Bench's appellate judgment

The Court observed that the Plaintiff failed to challenge the 2020 judgment via review or cross-appeal despite the clear omission of the wordmark "BOULT" in the operative part

The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Division Bench’s observation regarding the omission constituted a "changed circumstance"; rather, the Bench merely stated a factual record

The Court found no evidence of "undue hardship," noting the Plaintiff's six-year delay in seeking clarification and the Defendant’s statement that they had already transitioned to the mark "GOBOULT" and ceased using "BOULT"

It was held that entertaining this application would amount to an "abuse of process" and an attempt to circuitously rewrite a final judicial order after a prior withdrawal of a similar clarification application (I.A. 25533/2025) without liberty

The Court dismissed the application. The Court recorded the Defendant's undertaking to assist in taking down any residual online listings of the "BOULT" wordmark, but found no legal basis to grant a fresh injunction