HC restrains Cognizant from using its logo in India till trademark case concludes

A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne set aside a single-judge bench’s June 2024 order letting Cognizant use its logo while the case was being heard.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday restrained US-based IT services major Cognizant Technology Solutions from using its device mark or logo in India until the conclusion of a trademark infringement suit filed against it by Bengaluru-based company Atyati Technologies.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A division bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne set aside a single-judge bench’s June 2024 order letting Cognizant use its logo while the case was being heard. The division bench restored a March 2024 injunction that had barred Cognizant from using its logo in India until the case concluded.

Atyati Technologies sued Cognizant in 2023, alleging copyright and trademark infringement with respect to its logo. Both companies’ logos feature a hexagonal honeycomb design.

Atyati, which said it had been using its logo since 2019, alleged that Cognizant had infringed on its artistic work by acquiring a similar logo in 2022. It accused Cognizant of passing off, which in legal parlance refers to misleading the public into believing that the goods or services being sold belong to someone else.

In March 2024, a single-judge bench of the high court granted temporary relief to Atyati by restraining Cognizant from using its logo in India until the case concluded. Subsequently, Cognizant filed an affidavit in April 2024, seeking the discontinuation of the injunction. The US-based firm said that Atyati had suppressed material facts and made false statements, particularly about its knowledge of Cognizant’s adoption of its logo in 2022.

In June 2024, a different single-judge bench of the high court accepted Cognizant’s arguments and vacated the injunction, holding that Atyati had suppressed material information from the court. Aggrieved by this, Atyati filed an appeal before a division bench of the high court, challenging the June 13 order.

Senior advocate Ravi Kadam and advocate Hiren Kamod, appearing for Atyati, submitted that the single-judge bench had erroneously accused it of making false statements. The company claimed that it only became aware of Cognizant using its logo in October 2023 through a magazine article, which prompted it to issue a cease-and-desist notice.

Senior advocate Virag Tulzapurkar, appearing for Cognizant, argued that Atyati had indulged in gross suppression of material information while securing a temporary injunction in its favour. There could be “no extreme urgency” for granting a temporary injunction in Atyati’s favour with respect to infringement of copyright in the device mark, Tulazapurkar said, adding that the Bengaluru-based company was well aware of its logo in 2022. Cognizant also argued that it had publicly displayed its logo in LinkedIn posts in June and July 2022, in the Trademark Journal in March 2023, and in its US trademark filings from April 2022.

However, the division bench of the high court held that vacating the temporary injunction was not justified as the suppression of fact was not of a high degree. “No doubt, a party to litigation has a duty to disclose true and correct information and the relief of temporary injunction, being discretionary and equitable, can be denied to a plaintiff indulging in suppression of material information. However, it must also be examined as to in respect of which inquiry, the alleged suppressed information would have affected the mind of the court,” said the bench.

The division bench stated that Atyati’s suppression of information could not have led to the extent of warranting the discontinuation of the ad-interim injunction granted in its favour. It stated that the court, before vacating the injunction, could have used its discretion and called upon Cognizant to file a reply to the application for temporary injunction and then have decided the same.

“In our view, therefore, the order dated 13 June 2024 discontinuing the ad-interim injunction is indefensible and liable to be set aside,” the court concluded, allowing the interim injunction to be in place during the pendency of the case.