Supreme Court allows Cognizant to use logo; asks Bombay HC to decide trademark case in 6 months

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a Bombay High Court order that had injuncted Cognizant Technology Solutions from using a mark alleged to be deceptively similar to the registered “ATYATI” device mark of Atyati Technologies. [Cognizant Technology Solutions Private Corporation v. Atyati Technologies Private Limited].A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and R Mahadevan said, "The order is set aside. We are of the opinion that Division Bench erred in passing the order. This order will operate till the single judge decides the matter on merits. We request the single judge to decide the matter in 6 months. The single judge may decide the case without being influenced by this order.".The litigation between Atyati and Cognizant centres around the latter's claims of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the “ATYATI” device mark.In March 2024, Atyati filed a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High Court alleging that Cognizant was using a logo deceptively similar to its registered mark. Along with the suit, Atyati sought an interim injunction to restrain Cognizant from continuing use of the logo. On March 19, 2024, a single judge of the High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining Cognizant from infringing Atyati’s copyright in the artistic work comprising the ATYATI device mark.When Cognizant entered appearance, it opposed continuation of the injunction, contending that Atyati had obtained the ex-parte order by misrepresenting the date on which it became aware of Cognizant’s use of the logo. According to Cognizant, Atyati knew as early as 2022 that the impugned logo was in use, as reflected in a cease-and-desist notice issued by Atyati itself on October 30, 2023. That notice stated that Cognizant had adopted the mark in 2022, contradicting the stand in the plaint that knowledge arose only in October 2023. .On June 13, 2024, the single judge accepted Cognizant’s submissions and vacated the injunction, holding that Atyati had suppressed material facts and made a false statement to secure ex-parte relief. The judge reasoned that if the Court had known of Cognizant’s use since 2022, it would not have dispensed with notice.Atyati appealed and argued that the single judge had misconstrued its cease-and-desist notice, which only repeated information from an online article dated October 1, 2023, and that its actual knowledge of Cognizant’s use arose only then. It further contended that Cognizant itself, in a December 2023 reply, had described the adoption of the impugned mark as having occurred “most recently,” thereby supporting its position. Atyati maintained that there was no deliberate suppression and, at most, its pleadings could have been clearer.A Division Bench of then Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne held that the statement in Atyati’s October 2023 notice could be interpreted in different ways and did not necessarily amount to an admission of knowledge since 2022. It also observed that Cognizant’s own December 2023 reply, describing adoption of the logo as “most recent,” may have reasonably led Atyati to believe that the use began only shortly before. In this context, the allegation of suppression was found to be debatable rather than conclusive..The apex court has now set aside the order August 2024 and restored the order vacating the injunction in August 2025. It directed that this arrangement would continue till the Single Judge disposes off the application for interim injunction on merits. .Cognizant was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi..Atyati was represented by Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram and Neeraj Kishan Kaul.