SC sets aside Bombay HC order restraining Cognizant from using logo in India
ETtech
Synopsis
Cognizant on September 5 removed its logo from its website and all social media platforms, including LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter), in India, following a legal dispute with the small Bengaluru-based technology firm in a trademark dispute.
In a relief to Cognizant Technology Solutions US, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed it to use its logo in India, allegedly similar to that of Bengaluru-based Atyati Technologies, till the disposal of the latter's interim application seeking restraint orders against the former.
Restoring the single judge's June last year's order that favoured Cognizant, the apex court said that the division bench (DB) had erred in setting aside its single-judge bench decision. It further asked the single judge to decide on Atyati Technologies' interim injunction application against Cognizant expeditiously, preferably in six months.
In March 2024, the single judge, in an ex parte interim order, had prevented Cognizant from using the logo. However, a year later, the single judge had vacated its order and lifted the restriction on Cognizant to use the logo till the case was decided. Thereafter, on Atyati's appeal, the Division Bench differed with the single judge's June 2024 order.
Cognizant Spokesperson, in its press statement, said, "The SC, after hearing the parties, set aside the Division Bench's order, which had previously restricted Cognizant from using the logo. The Supreme Court restored the earlier order of the Bombay HC refusing to continue the injunction against Cognizant. The SC also directed the expeditious disposal of the injunction application by the Single Judge’s Bench, Bombay High Court, within six months."
Atyati Technologies had adopted the mark 'ATYATI' in 2008 in relation to information technology infrastructure, software development, and consulting services, among others. In 2019, the company rebranded to a unique logo which features an orange-coloured hexagonal honeycomb symbolising collaboration, compassion, and impact, depicted by the slightly inclined representation. The device mark was an original artistic work for which Atyati has copyright, said the respondent.
In October 2023, Atyati found that Cognizant was offering similar services using a similar logo, which bore a striking resemblance to its registered device mark. The addition of the corporate name 'Cognizant,' minor changes in the representation of the device mark, and the use of a different colour were of no relevance and amounted to infringement of Atyati's copyright in the registered 'ATYATI' mark, it said.
Senior counsel AM Singhvi appeared for Cognizant, while Atyati was represented by senior counsel CA Sundaram before the SC.
Cognizant, in its appeal, told the SC that Atyati had suppressed publicly available material that showed that its enterprise was one of the largest and most reputable IT solutions groups in the world, and Atyati had misled the court by suppressing publicly available material regarding its true date of adoption, the firm stated.
Cognizant argued that Atyati’s own cease-and-desist notice dated October 30, 2023, showcased the logos it had used over the years, including the disputed one adopted in March 2022 — a “material fact” that the Bengaluru company had either withheld or misrepresented.
The division bench order reinstates the ex parte order merely on the ground that the question of suppression was debatable, and it was "difficult to conclusively hold that Atyati engaged in a deliberate act of suppression,” Cognizant said.
"The DB has created artificial classes of suppression and proceeded to substitute its view for that of the single judge... Classification of apparently condonable versus non-condonable degrees of suppression is contrary to law,” the lawyers told ET.
In its June 2024 order, the HC noted that it was persuaded to pass an ex parte order earlier after Atyati argued that it came to know about Cognizant's use of the logo in October 2023. However, it learned that this statement by Atyati was false, it said. Despite being aware of the website of Logos-World.net, from which it copied the diagram in its notice, Atyati did not disclose the website or the fact that Cognizant had started using the logo in 2022, the single judge had stated.
ADVERTISEMENT
Clarifying that there was no bar on Cognizant from using a logo in India, a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and R Mahadevan set aside a Bombay High Court division bench's August 26 order that restrained the US firm from doing so. Restoring the single judge's June last year's order that favoured Cognizant, the apex court said that the division bench (DB) had erred in setting aside its single-judge bench decision. It further asked the single judge to decide on Atyati Technologies' interim injunction application against Cognizant expeditiously, preferably in six months.
In March 2024, the single judge, in an ex parte interim order, had prevented Cognizant from using the logo. However, a year later, the single judge had vacated its order and lifted the restriction on Cognizant to use the logo till the case was decided. Thereafter, on Atyati's appeal, the Division Bench differed with the single judge's June 2024 order.
Cognizant Spokesperson, in its press statement, said, "The SC, after hearing the parties, set aside the Division Bench's order, which had previously restricted Cognizant from using the logo. The Supreme Court restored the earlier order of the Bombay HC refusing to continue the injunction against Cognizant. The SC also directed the expeditious disposal of the injunction application by the Single Judge’s Bench, Bombay High Court, within six months."
Atyati Technologies had adopted the mark 'ATYATI' in 2008 in relation to information technology infrastructure, software development, and consulting services, among others. In 2019, the company rebranded to a unique logo which features an orange-coloured hexagonal honeycomb symbolising collaboration, compassion, and impact, depicted by the slightly inclined representation. The device mark was an original artistic work for which Atyati has copyright, said the respondent.
ADVERTISEMENT
In October 2023, Atyati found that Cognizant was offering similar services using a similar logo, which bore a striking resemblance to its registered device mark. The addition of the corporate name 'Cognizant,' minor changes in the representation of the device mark, and the use of a different colour were of no relevance and amounted to infringement of Atyati's copyright in the registered 'ATYATI' mark, it said.
Senior counsel AM Singhvi appeared for Cognizant, while Atyati was represented by senior counsel CA Sundaram before the SC.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cognizant, in its appeal, told the SC that Atyati had suppressed publicly available material that showed that its enterprise was one of the largest and most reputable IT solutions groups in the world, and Atyati had misled the court by suppressing publicly available material regarding its true date of adoption, the firm stated.
Cognizant argued that Atyati’s own cease-and-desist notice dated October 30, 2023, showcased the logos it had used over the years, including the disputed one adopted in March 2022 — a “material fact” that the Bengaluru company had either withheld or misrepresented.
ADVERTISEMENT
The division bench order reinstates the ex parte order merely on the ground that the question of suppression was debatable, and it was "difficult to conclusively hold that Atyati engaged in a deliberate act of suppression,” Cognizant said.
"The DB has created artificial classes of suppression and proceeded to substitute its view for that of the single judge... Classification of apparently condonable versus non-condonable degrees of suppression is contrary to law,” the lawyers told ET.
ADVERTISEMENT
The US-based tech major further stated that the DB substituted its own view for that of the single judge without testing whether the exercise of discretion was perverse, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the settled law. A person guilty of concealment is not entitled to be heard on merits and is not entitled to any relief, it added.In its June 2024 order, the HC noted that it was persuaded to pass an ex parte order earlier after Atyati argued that it came to know about Cognizant's use of the logo in October 2023. However, it learned that this statement by Atyati was false, it said. Despite being aware of the website of Logos-World.net, from which it copied the diagram in its notice, Atyati did not disclose the website or the fact that Cognizant had started using the logo in 2022, the single judge had stated.
