Calcutta High Court Refuses Interim Injunction Against 'ON & ON' In ONN's Trademark Suit

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal by Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited, which uses the registered 'ONN' mark for its hosiery products, seeking a trademark injunction against Anila Kedia, who was using the mark 'ON & ON'.

A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the Commercial Court at Rajarhat's December 23, 2025 order refusing interim injunction to the appellant.

Biswanath Hosiery, a manufacturer and seller of hosiery products, had filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Kedia.

The trial court's refusal to grant interim relief prompted the appeal.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that since 'ONN' was a registered mark under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the respondent's use of 'ON & ON' amounted to infringement.

It also contended that the respondent could not claim prior use, since the appellant's registration and claimed use dated back to 2011, while the respondent's invoice on record was from 2016.

The Trade Marks Registrar had in 2011 raised an objection under Section 11 of the Act citing similarity with existing marks, including 'ON-N-ON'. In response, the appellant's advocates stated that 'ONN' was “a coined and meaningless expression” that was “visually, structurally and conceptually different” from the cited marks. The appellant proceeded to obtain registration on the basis of that stand before the Registrar.

The respondent argued that the appellant was estopped from contending that 'ONN' was similar to 'ON & ON', when it had itself claimed dissimilarity with the structurally comparable 'ON-N-ON'.

Agreeing, the court observed, “On the parity of the reasoning as contained in its letter dated September 30, 2011, it cannot be said that there are similarities between 'ONN' and 'ON & ON'. At least on a prima facie level while considering a petition for grant of injunction, similarity finding cannot be returned.”

Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's order, the bench dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.