Neelam Gupta Vs Esme Consumer Pvt Ltd.

**Summary:**  

Neelam Gupta, claiming to be the registered proprietor of the trademark "GRACE HEAVEN" since 2019 and using it continuously for cosmetics and allied goods with distinctive trade dress and logo, filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court for groundless threats under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, based on a cease-and-desist notice dated 4 September 2025 issued by Esme Consumer Private Limited (registered proprietor of "HEAVEN" for similar goods) and another. Without replying to the notice initially, the petitioner sought interlocutory reliefs; she replied only on 26 September 2025 after filing the suit. Subsequently, the respondent filed an infringement suit CS-(COM)/476/2025 before the Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi. The respondent argued that the groundless threats suit must be dismissed due to the subsequent infringement action filed with due diligence. The petitioner contended that the suit could not be dismissed without a formal Order VII Rule 11 application, that damages survive independently, and that partial rejection of the plaint is impermissible. The Court held that once an infringement suit is instituted with due diligence, the groundless threats action becomes infructuous as the threats cease to be groundless, the cause of action extinguishes, and consequential damages claims linked solely to such threats also fail, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and fulfill the legislative intent of the provisions; no separate independent cause of action was pleaded, the Court can dismiss suo moto without formal application, and cited precedents supported this view while distinguishing the petitioner's authorities on facts.

**Key legal principles settled:**

- Once the person making threats commences and prosecutes with due diligence an infringement action against the threatened party, the suit for groundless threats under Section 142(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 becomes infructuous and ceases to apply, as the threats are no longer groundless (Para 10, 11, 15, 16).

- The cause of action in a groundless threats suit extinguishes upon filing of the infringement suit, and ancillary claims for damages intrinsically linked to and dependent on the groundless threats also fail, as they cannot survive independently without the primary relief (Para 12, 13).

- No formal application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is mandatorily required for dismissal; the Court has a duty to reject the plaint suo moto if barred by law (Para 14).

- The legislative intent behind Section 142 TM Act and Section 60 Copyright Act is to protect against baseless threats without proceedings, but once infringement proceedings are initiated diligently, parallel continuation of the threats suit defeats this purpose and leads to multiplicity (Para 10, 13, 16).

**Case Title:** Neelam Gupta Vs Esme Consumer Private Limited and Another  

**Order date:** 30.01.2026  

**Case Number:** IA No. GA-COM/1/2025 in IP-COM/47/2025  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:CHC-OS:39 (as appearing in the document header)  

**Name of court:** High Court at Calcutta (Original Side, Intellectual Property Rights Division)  

**Name of Judge:** Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

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

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

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor