B.L and Company Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

 B.L and Company Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks:13.07.2026 : C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025: Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. This appeal challenged an order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the respondent refusing the registration of the trademark B.I.A. under Application No. 6082938 in Class 06. The registration was refused by invoking Section 11(1) of the Act on the grounds that a similar valid mark blac with a similar classification of goods under Application No. 5763264 already existed on the register, and the deceptive similarity would lead to a likelihood of public confusion. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant filed an amendment application dated 16.04.2025 for a correction in the description of goods.

Dispute before Court

The dispute before the court concerned whether the respondent erred in refusing the registration of the trademark by ignoring the appellant's amendment application for correcting the description of goods. The appellant contended that the goods in the original application were not identical, similar, allied, or cognate, and that the amendment application ought to have been considered.

The respondent countered that a comparison of the rival goods revealed an overlap, making them allied and cognate. The respondent further argued that the proviso to Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 prohibits any amendment in an application that has the effect of substantially altering the trademark or substituting a new specification of goods not included in the original filing, relying on the Division Bench precedent in Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta.

Reasoning and discussion of Judge

The judge examined the application filed by the appellant for amendment or correction in the description of goods. The court observed that there was no doubt that the proposed changes constituted a substantial alteration and the goods described in the second application fell into a completely different class. Consequently, by virtue of Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and the legal principles established by the Division Bench in Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta, the court found no fault in the respondent's decision to disallow the correction or amendment.

Decision

Following the court's observation regarding the impermissibility of the amendment, the counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh application for registration of the mark B.I.A. for a different description of goods falling under a different class. The court, without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, granting the requested liberty in accordance with the law.

Important legal priciple held

Under the proviso to Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, an applicant is prohibited from making any amendment to a trademark application that has the effect of substantially altering the trademark applied for or substituting a new specification of goods or services that was not included in the original application as filed.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]

Trademark Class Amendment and Refusals under Section 11 of Trademarks Act 1999

Introduction

The legal framework governing intellectual property rights plays a pivotal role in maintaining market fairness and preventing consumer confusion. In the realm of trademark law, conflicts often arise when an applicant seeks to register a mark that closely resembles an existing registered trademark. A significant aspect of this administrative process is the limitation placed on amending an application once it has been filed. This article explores a recent decision by the High Court of Delhi that underscores the strict boundaries governing amendments to trademark specifications and highlights the procedural recourse available to applicants when their applications conflict with pre-existing marks.

Factual and Procedural Background

The controversy originated from an application filed by an appellant seeking the registration of the trademark B.I.A. under application number 6082938 in class 06. The statutory framework involved primarily includes Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides the right to appeal against decisions of the registrar, and Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The respondent, acting as the trademark registry, rejected this application through an order dated July 28, 2025. The refusal was grounded in Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of marks that are deceptively similar to earlier registered marks for identical or similar goods, thereby posing a likelihood of public confusion. The registry cited a pre-existing valid registered mark, blac, under application number 5763264, which also covered similar goods. Seeking to overcome this rejection, the appellant filed an interim application on April 16, 2025, attempting to correct and amend the description of its goods. When the registry refused the registration, the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi to challenge the refusal order.

Dispute Before the Court

The core legal question requiring adjudication was whether the trademark registry erred in refusing the registration of the appellant's mark by failing to consider the amendment application for correcting the description of goods. The appellant contended that the goods in its original application were entirely distinct from those covered by the cited registered mark, arguing they were neither identical nor allied. The appellant further argued that its application to amend the description of goods should have been factored into the registry's decision-making process. 

On the other hand, the respondent argued that a direct comparison of the rival goods revealed a substantial overlap, making them allied and cognate in nature. The respondent strongly maintained that the proposed amendment could not be permitted under the law because it sought to substantially alter the original application by moving the goods into a different classification, which is explicitly barred by the prevailing statutory rules.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

In analyzing the conflict, the court focused heavily on the statutory boundaries governing the amendment of trademark applications. The primary focus turned toward Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The proviso to this rule explicitly proscribes any amendment to a trademark application if it has the effect of substantially altering the trademark or substituting a new specification of goods or services that was not part of the initial filing. Upon examining the appellant's amendment application, the court found that the proposed changes did indeed constitute a substantial alteration, effectively attempting to shift the goods into a completely different class. 

To fortify this reasoning, the court relied on an authoritative precedent established by its own Division Bench in the case of Landmark Crafts Limited versus Romil Gupta trading as Sohan Lal Gupta and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 762. In that precedent, the Division Bench firmly ruled against allowing amendments that fundamentally change the scope or classification of the goods specified in the original application. Applying this legal principle, the court concluded that the trademark registry committed no legal error in ignoring or disallowing the amendment, as accepting it would violate the statutory mandate of Rule 37.

Final Decision of the Court

Faced with the court's clear analysis regarding the impermissibility of the amendment, the legal counsel for the appellant chose not to pursue the merits of the appeal further. Instead, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal while requesting the liberty to file a brand-new application for the registration of the trademark B.I.A. specifying a different set of goods falling under a different classification. The court accepted this request. Without making any final observations on the ultimate merits of the trademark's eligibility, the court officially disposed of the appeal as withdrawn and granted the appellant the liberty to file a fresh application in accordance with the law.

Point of Law Settled

This judgment reaffirms an essential procedural rule in intellectual property practice: applicants cannot use the amendment mechanism to bypass objections by substantially altering their classification of goods after an application is filed. The legal principle reaffirmed is that the proviso to Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 operates as a strict statutory bar against amendments that substitute or fundamentally change the specification of goods or services beyond what was originally requested. This ensures that the integrity of the trademark register is maintained and prevents applicants from retroactively modifying their claims to defeat valid objections raised under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Title of the Case:  B.L and Company Vs Registrar of Trade Marks

Date of Judgment: 13.07.2026

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .

Headnote of the Judgment:

In the case of  B.L and Company Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, before the High Court of Delhi, the appellant challenged an order refusing the registration of its mark B.I.A. due to deceptive similarity with the registered mark blac under Class 06. The appellant sought to rely on an amendment application altering its description of goods. The Court observed that Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 strictly prohibits amendments causing substantial alterations or introducing new specifications of goods outside the original application. Consequently, the appellant chose to withdraw the appeal, and the Court disposed of the matter as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a fresh application under a different class.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, Trademark Law, Section 91 Trade Marks Act, Rule 37 Trade Marks Rules, B.L and Company, Registrar of Trade Marks, Trademark Refusal, Deceptive Similarity, Likelihood of Confusion, Class 06 Trademarks, Specification of Goods, Amendment of Trademark Application, Allied and Cognate Goods, Intellectual Property Rights, Landmark Crafts Limited v Romil Gupta, Trade Marks Act 1999, Trade Marks Rules 2017, Trademark Registration Process, Withdrawal of Appeal, Liberty to File Fresh Application, IP Litigation Delhi, Trademark Classification, Judicial Review Trademarks, Indian Trademark Jurisprudence, Commercial Appellate Jurisdiction, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits on Amending Trademark Applications, Understanding Rule 37 of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Delhi High Court Ruling, Can You Amend Product Descriptions in a Pending Trademark Application, M/S B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks Case Analysis, High Court Rules on Substantial Alterations in Trademark Specifications, The Legal Boundaries of Trademark Amendments in India, Deceptive Similarity and Specification Changes in Trademark Law, Delhi High Court Precedent on Shifting Trademark Goods Classification, When Can a Trademark Appeal Be Withdrawn with Liberty to Refile, A Guide to Trademark Class Changes and Refusals under Section 11