{"id":28016,"date":"2026-07-23T05:29:49","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T05:29:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28016"},"modified":"2026-07-23T05:35:54","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T05:35:54","slug":"delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Rule_37_of_the_Trade_Marks_Rules_2017\" >Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Reliance_on_Precedent\" >Reliance on Precedent<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Key_Legal_Takeaways\" >Key Legal Takeaways<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The controversy originated from an application filed by an appellant seeking the registration of the trademark <strong>B.I.A.<\/strong> under application number <strong>6082938<\/strong> in Class 06.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The statutory framework involved primarily includes the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999<\/strong>, which provides the right to appeal against decisions of the Registrar.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent, acting as the Trademark Registry, rejected this application through an order dated <strong>July 28, 2025<\/strong>. The refusal was grounded in <strong>Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Registry cited a pre-existing valid registered mark, &#8220;black,&#8221; under application number <strong>5763264<\/strong>, which also covered similar goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Seeking to overcome this rejection, the appellant filed an interim application on <strong>April 16, 2025<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The core legal question requiring adjudication was whether the Trademark Registry erred in refusing the registration of the appellant&#8217;s mark by failing to consider the amendment application for correcting the description of goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant contended that<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The goods in its original application were entirely distinct from those covered by the cited registered mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The goods were neither identical nor allied.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The application to amend the description of goods should have been factored into the Registry&#8217;s decision-making process.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the other hand, the respondent argued that<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A direct comparison of the rival goods revealed a substantial overlap.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The goods were allied and cognate in nature.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In analyzing the conflict, the Court focused heavily on the statutory boundaries governing the amendment of trademark applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-rule-37-of-the-trade-marks-rules-2017\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rule_37_of_the_Trade_Marks_Rules_2017\"><\/span>Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The primary focus turned toward <strong>Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Upon examining the appellant&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-reliance-on-precedent\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reliance_on_Precedent\"><\/span>Reliance on Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To fortify this reasoning, the Court relied on an authoritative precedent established by its own Division Bench in the case of <strong>Landmark Crafts Limited versus Romil Gupta trading as Sohan Lal Gupta and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 762<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Faced with the Court&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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 <strong>B.I.A.,<\/strong> specifying a different set of goods falling under a different classification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court accepted this request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Without making any final observations on the ultimate merits of the trademark&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The legal principle reaffirmed is that the proviso to <strong>Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017,<\/strong> operates as a strict statutory bar against amendments that substitute or fundamentally change the specification of goods or services beyond what was originally requested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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 <strong>Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Legal Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Trademark Amendment<\/td><td>Cannot substantially alter the specification of goods or services after filing.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Applicable Rule<\/td><td>Proviso to Rule 37 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Ground of Refusal<\/td><td>Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Important Precedent<\/td><td>Landmark Crafts Limited v. Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 762.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Outcome<\/td><td>Appeal withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh trademark application.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td>B.L and Company Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment<\/th><td>13.07.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 69\/2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\">High Court of Delhi<\/a><\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Honorable Judge<\/th><td>Honorable Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-written-by\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong><br>IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)<br>High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/insufficiency-of-disclosure-in-patent-specification-and-rejection-of-patent-appeal\/\">Insufficiency of Disclosure in Patent Specification and Rejection of Patent Appeal<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaafi-naturcure-llp-v-assistant-controller-of-patents-delhi-high-court-on-traditional-knowledge-herbal-patents-section-3p\/\">Shaafi Naturcure LLP v. Assistant Controller of Patents: Delhi High Court on Traditional Knowledge, Herbal Patents &amp; Section 3(p)<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dubai-off-plan-property-disputes-investor-rights-guide-2026\/\">Dubai Off-Plan Property Disputes Guide 2026: Investor Rights, Refunds &amp; Legal Remedies<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/patent-claims-unsupported-by-disclosure-violate-section-105-of-the-patent-act-1970\/\">Patent Claims Unsupported by Disclosure Violate Section 10(5) of the Patent Act 1970<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-trademarks-act-1999-essential-provisions-and-comprehensive-overview\/\">The Trademarks Act, 1999: Essential Provisions and Comprehensive Overview<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-28016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v28.1 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1055,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Can You Amend a Trademark Application After Filing? Delhi High Court Clarifies Rule 37 in B.L and Company Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)","og_description":"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)","datePublished":"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/"},"wordCount":1055,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/","name":"Delhi High Court on Trademark Amendments: Rule 37 Bars Change of Goods Specification After Filing | B.L and Company v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-23T05:29:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T05:35:54+00:00","description":"Delhi High Court rules Rule 37 bars major trademark amendments after filing. Learn the B.L and Company trademark judgment.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-amendment-rule-37-goods-specification-judgment-2026\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Can You Amend a Trademark Application After Filing? Delhi High Court Clarifies Rule 37 in B.L and Company Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28016"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28426,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28016\/revisions\/28426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}