This is the second round of litigation between Cognizant Technologies Solutions (Cognizant) and Atyati Technologies Private Limited (Atyati). The bone of contention is the use of the logo as depicted below:

Atyati brought this suit for trademark and copyright infringement at the Bombay High Court and the High Court vide its order dated March 19, 2024, had granted an ex-parte injunction restraining Cognizant from using the device and infringing in any manner the copyright in the Atyati mark/logo . The details of earlier order can be accessed here. Cognizant has now applied for setting aside the ex parte injunction and this post discusses the contentions raised by both parties and Court’s decision to set aside the earlier order.

Cognizant seeks to set aside the injunction on the following:

1. Atyati has failed to disclose information that Cognizant is one of the largest and reputable IT solutions groups globally.
2. This suppression undermines Atyati’s case and highlights the lack of legal or equitable grounds for granting ex-parte injunction without notice to Cognizant.
3. Atyati has misled the Court by suppressing publicly available information about Cognizant’s use of the disputed mark since March 2022.
4. Generally, notice of an application for injunction must be given to the opposing party subject to one exception: when it appears that the purpose of granting the injunction would be undermined by delay. The said exception would not apply in the instant case, as providing notice to Cognizant would not have compromised the objective of issuing the injunction, if it were to be granted.
5. Cognizant had filed caveats in the courts in Bangalore and Chennai. Atyati avoided the caveats and filed the action in Bombay. The caveats filed in Bengaluru and Chennai was relevant to the consideration of granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction and ought to have been disclosed to the Court.
6. Documents on record evidence that Atyati was aware that Cognizant was using the disputed logo since 2022 onwards. However, misled the court by stating that they became aware of the use only in October 2023.
7. The website www.logos-world.net shows the history of mark/logo adopted by Cognizant from 1994 to the present day. Even though Atyati had taken the details from the said website they suppressed this fact in the plaint.
8. The fact that the disputed logo was advertised in the Trademarks Journal dated March 13, 2023, was also suppressed in the plaint.
9. The contention that if notice was issued to Cognizant, it would defeat Atyati’s rights as crucial evidence maybe destroyed has no relevance as the former is providing services and there is no question of destroying evidence.

Atyati seeks continuation of the injunction on the following grounds:

1. The injunction order has been passed on merits and Cognizant has not challenged the merits of the order.
2. Cognizant’s reply to the cease-and-desist letter was annexed to the plaint and the Court was aware of its significant status.
3. There is no suppression by Atyati as Cognizant in the reply letter has stated that the logo was most recently adopted.
4. The averment regarding the website www.logos-world.net ought not to be considered as it does not form part of the Cognizant’s affidavit in reply.

After considering the pleadings, arguments and case laws the Court held:

1. In the plaint Atyati contended that they learned about Cognizant’s impugned logo around October 2023. Thus, they sought urgent relief on the ground that Cognizant’s dishonest intentions and practices required prompt action.
2. The injunction order does not detail the reasons for granting an ex-parte ad interim injunction without notice. However, it mentions that Atyati became aware of Cognizant’s use of the mark only in October 2023. It was on this basis that Court granted an injunction without notice. From the documents on record Atyati’s claim that they discovered use of the mark in October 2023 is a false statement knowingly made by Atyati.
3. In the cease-and-desist letter Atyati used a diagram from www.logos-world.net which showed that Cognizant was using the disputed logo since 2022. The website mentions about various logos used by Cognizant from 1994 to 2022. Despite being aware of this fact Atyati failed to disclose that Cognizant was using the logo since 2022. Atyati’s omission prevents them from arguing that the website should not be considered, as they themselves suppressed this evidence.
4. Cognizant’s LinkedIn page shows that the impugned logo was used on June 20, 2022, and July 21, 2022. Thus, it appears that Atyati either failed to conduct inquiries or deliberately suppressed the evidence of Cognizant’s LinkedIn account showing the use of the logo on the said dates.
5. Cognizant’s impugned mark was advertised in the Trademark Journal on March 13, 2023, and the Parent Country Application in the USA, was filed on April 20, 2022, which indicates first use on March 21, 2022. The aforesaid information was also not disclosed by Atyati.
6. Atyati did not clarify their late awareness of Cognizant’s logo use, despite evidence to the contrary. Considering Atyati’s prior knowledge that Cognizant had used the impugned logo since 2022, the claim of learning about the impugned logo in October 2023 is unconvincing. Had Atyati disclosed that Cognizant had been using the impugned logo since 2022, the Court would not have granted urgent ad interim reliefs without notice.

Given the above, the Court held that the interim injunction should not be continued considering Atyati’s deliberate suppression of important facts. Moreover, Cognizant who provide services rather than goods, are not at risk of dissipating assets.

Our Comment

The order highlights the consequences of failing to provide full and frank disclosure upfront, especially when the court grants ex-parte injunctions based on pleadings without hearing the other side.