In a recent legal conflict titled Atyati Technologies (P) Ltd v. Cognizant Technologies Solutions US Corporation & Anr. Commercial IP (L) No. 7897 Of 2023, Bengaluru IT company Atyati Technologies (P) Ltd. made a daring move by seeking assistance from the Bombay High Court. The company claimed that the newly designed logo of the American tech giant Cognizant Technology Solutions bears a strong resemblance to their own. This action taken by Atyati Technologies emphasised the significance of safeguarding intellectual property rights, particularly in a competitive market such as India’s IT industry. A comparison between the logos is enumerated below in the tabular form:
The legal dispute between Atyati Technologies and Cognizant Technology Solutions revolves around logo infringement. Atyati alleged that the new logo of Cognizant was very similar to their own, causing confusion among customers and potentially harming their brand image. Atyati provided proof highlighting the likeness between the two logos to bolster their argument, underscoring the possible negative impact of Cognizant’s new branding.
Defendants’ Submissions
The defendants filed an Affidavit in Reply praying before the Hon’ble Court that the ex-parte ad-interim relief ought not to be granted in favour of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff has suppressed certain material facts and has made false statements/misrepresentations in its Plaint, and which if be disclosed, would amount to making the application for ad-interim relief verbose, and that such injunction could not have been given without prior notice to the Defendants. The Defendants submitted that:
- The plaintiff has suppressed material facts regarding the defendant being one of the largest and most reputed IT solutions groups in the world and that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for the grant of ex-parte ad-interim relief without notice to the Defendants;
- The plaintiff has suppressed material facts about the defendant’s adoption/use of the impugned mark since March 2022 by presenting a fake picture in its Plaint, thus amounting to an attempt for an urgency in grant of interim relief;
- The Plaint/Application for interim relief is against the principles of equity, natural justice and laws governing the grant of ex-parte relief.
Plaintiff’s Submissions
- The Defendants themselves have stated that they adopted the impugned mark “most recently,” and on this basis alone, the plaintiff was not required to inquire about the defendant’s alleged use of the impugned mark.
- The defendant’s Affidavit in reply did not contain any explanation as to why the Defendants adopted the impugned mark;
- The plaintiff relied upon the decision of Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (2002)3 SCC 65 and Marico Limited vs KLR Nirmal Industries Pvt. Ltd. (IA(L) No.26759 of 2023 in Commercial IP (L) Suit No. 2293 of 2023), which stated that if a case of infringement is made out, ex-parte injunction ought to be granted;
- The Plaintiffs relied upon the decision of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs Coca-Cola Company 1995 AIR 2372, 1995 SCC (5) 545, JT 1995 (6), 3 1995 SCALE (4)635, and stated that since the Defendants have not given any response to the injunction application as to its adoption of the impugned logo, it should amount to dishonest adoption on the part of the defendant and that the Court must always look into the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for seeking vacation of the injunction;
Court’s Decision
Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court determined that Atyati Technologies’ claims were justified. The Court has issued a temporary order preventing Cognizant Technology Solutions from using its logo in India until additional orders are given. This choice highlighted the importance of safeguarding intellectual property rights and the requirement for companies to acknowledge their competitors’ branding efforts.
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
The legal dispute between Atyati Technologies and Cognizant Technology Solutions highlights the crucial need to protect intellectual property rights in the modern era. Due to the rapid progress in technology and the growing interconnectedness of the global market, the risk of infringement has increased. Businesses must actively safeguard their trademarks, logos, and other intellectual properties to stop unauthorised usage and preserve their reputation in the market.
When companies suspect infringement, it is important for them to take legal action to protect their intellectual property rights. Companies can uphold their rights through legal measures, pursue compensation for harm done, and stop additional breaches. The Atyati Technologies v. Cognizant Technology Solutions case shows how legal action can be used to settle conflicts and protect a company’s brand reputation.
The legal dispute between Atyati Technologies and Cognizant Technology Solutions has affected the tech industry, highlighting the significance of branding and intellectual property rights. Businesses are now more careful in safeguarding their logos and trademarks, ensuring they are unique and not easily mixed up with rivals. This increased recognition is beneficial for promoting equitable competition and creativity in the technology industry.
In conclusion, the ATYATI Technologies (P) Ltd. v. COGNIZANT Technologies Solutions US Corp. case emphasises the significance of safeguarding intellectual property rights within the technology industry. Preserving the authenticity of logos and brands aids firms in safeguarding their brand image and credibility, thus encouraging healthy competition and creativity. Due to this legal conflict, companies need to prioritise safeguarding their intellectual property and staying informed about the branding activities of other entities.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Kamini Choubey
First Published by: Lexology here