Bombay High Court refuses interim relief to Atyati in plea against Cognizant over logo trademark

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined fintech firm Atyati Technologies’ plea to restrain Cognizant from using its new 'C' logo [Atyati Technologies Private Limited v. Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corporation & Anr].

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh held that Atyati has not made out a case of copyright infringement or passing off at the interim stage

Hence, the judge dismissed an interim application filed by Bengaluru‑based Atyati in its commercial IP suit against Cognizant Technology Solutions, a global IT services major.

Atyati sought a temporary injunction to stop Cognizant from using its hexagonal 'C' device logo in India, alleging that it was a copy of Atyati’s orange hexagonal device adopted during a 2019 rebranding and used with its 'ATYATI' house mark.

The Court recorded that the 'ATYATI' device mark is an orange, hexagonal honeycomb‑style logo and that Cognizant’s logo is a blue‑green hexagonal 'C' device.

Justice Deshmukh found a resemblance between the two logos because of the single element hexagonal shaped logo.

“The comparison of the rival logos shows resembling hexagonal honeycomb device shape with colour contrast and whereas the 'ATYATI' logo is inclined upwards, the Cognizant logo is positioned horizontally,” the Court recorded. 

However, the judge emphasised that it is the act of copying which is actionable and not a resemblance between the copyrighted work and the mark. 

“Cognizant having prima facie established independent creation of logo and the absence of material to infer reasonable opportunity to access the Plaintiff’s logo, the claim for copyright infringement to restrain the Defendant’s use of its logo at interim stage must fail,” the Court held.

The judge emphasised that public availability of Atyati’s mark in India alone could not justify an inference of copying.

“The time distance between the adoption of the Atyati’s logo in the year 2019, and the process of creation of the Cognizant logo is relatively short to demonstrate a reasonable opportunity of viewing the copyrighted work,” the judge observed. 

Atyati also invoked reverse passing off arguing that Cognizant’s global presence and use of a similar logo would swamp the market and cause consumers to assume Atyati was connected to Cognizant. 

The Court found Atyati’s claim unsustainable as their logo was of recent origin, always used with the word mark 'ATYATI', and there was no material to show standalone goodwill in the device itself.

On the businesses, the Court highlighted that Atyati serves public‑sector and regional rural banks in India, while Cognizant caters to Fortune 500 multinationals worldwide, with highly sophisticated decision‑makers unlikely to be confused merely by similar geometric logos. '

“It is the word ‘ATYATI’ which is leading and essential feature of its mark,” the judge observed, concluding that the traditional trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage was not made out by Atyati. 

Senior advocate Ravi Kadam with advocates Hiren Kamod and Abhishek Adke appeared for Atyati.

Senior advocates Virag Tulzapurkar and Venkatesh Dhond with advocates Rashmin Khandekar, V Mohini, Aarti Agarwal, Karan Khiani, Rohan Lopes, Anand Mohan and Rashmi Singh appeared for Cognizant. 

[Read Order]