C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025 M/S B.L AND COMPANY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Amique Khalid and Ms. Ruchi Gusain, Advocates. versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS TRADEMARKS REGISTRY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Ms. Nikita Singh and Mr. Rishay Raj, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 13.07.2026 1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) laying a challenge to impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Respondent refusing registration of the mark under Application No. 6082938 in Class 06 invoking Section 11(1) of 1999 Act, on the ground that a similar valid mark blac with similar classification of goods under Application No. 5763264 is already registered and exists on the Register of Trade Marks and registration of the mark This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:34:50 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025 , which is deceptively similar will lead to likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent has refused to register the mark owing to an alleged deceptive similarity with the existing and registered mark blac as also owing to similarity in the description of goods. Respondent has overlooked a crucial fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, Appellant had filed an application dated 16.04.2025 for correction in the description of goods and therefore, this aspect ought to have been considered before taking a decision. This submission is made without prejudice to the submission that the goods for which the original application was made are neither identical nor similar or allied or cognate. 3. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC, on the other hand, draws the attention of the Court to the comparison between the rival goods, in respect of which registration was sought by the Appellant at the first instance and the table is as follows:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:34:50 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025 4. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the comparative table would show that the rival goods, even if not similar, are allied and cognate and there is an overlap and therefore, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order refusing registration looking at the deceptive similarity of the marks and blac and similarity of goods. Insofar as the application to correct the description of goods, which was filed during the pendency of the proceedings, is concerned, it is submitted that Proviso to Rule 37 of 2017 Rules proscribes any amendment in the application for registration which has the effect of substantially altering the trademark applied for or substituting a new specification of goods or services, not included in the application as filed. She supports her submission with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 762. Copy of the application dated 16.04.2026 is taken on record. 5. I have examined the application filed by the Appellant for amendment/correction in the description of goods given in the original application and there is no doubt that there is a substantial alteration and the goods described in the second application fall in a different class. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 37 of 2017 Rules and the judgment of the Division Bench in Landmark Crafts Limited (supra), no fault can be found that the Respondent in not permitting the correction/amendment sought for. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellant, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh application for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:34:50 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 69/2025 registration of the mark in respect of a different description of goods falling under a different class. 7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for, in accordance with law. JYOTI SINGH, J JULY 13, 2026 S.Sharma This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2026 at 11:34:50