The court, in its ex-parte order, also observed that Atyati Technologies has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience also tilts in its favour.
“I have heard learned counsel Hiren Kamod and I find a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff (Atyati Technologies) as, the use of the impugned, deceptively similar marks, label by the defendant (Cognizant) constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights,” observed Justice Bharati Dangre in her order of March 19. The order was uploaded on April 10.
“The use of the impugned mark/label with deceptively/substantially similar trade dress, further constitutes passing off the goods and business of defendant as and for those of the plaintiff, and the general public and the people in the trade would be deceived into believing that the defendant has some affiliation, connection or nexus with the plaintiff when there is no such relationship existing between them,” observed the court while restraining Cognizant from using the trademark logo in India until further orders.
The court has adjourned the case for further hearing on April 30.
Before the court passed its order, Atyati Technologies argued that last year in October, the company was surprised to learn that the defendant (Cognizant Technology) was offering almost identical services relating to IT infrastructure, software development for banking and financial services, and consulting services under a mark/logo as its prominent, leading and essential feature.
Discover the stories of your interest
Along with advocate Hiren Kamod, Nishad Nadkarni of Khaitan & Co appeared for the petitioner company in the case.The Indian company has claimed that its device mark (logo) comprised an orange-coloured hexagonal honeycomb/hive device which stands for collaboration, compassion and impact, depicted by the slightly inclined representation, which stands for the motto and values imbibed by the petitioner’s organisation in its business activities. The company also claimed that it has adopted this mark since early 2019.
The court also observed that “it is also curious to note that there is no reason or justification whatsoever in the defendants’ said response as to how or in what manner did the defendants come to adopt the mark/logo which is almost identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ATYATI Registered Marks and the ATYATI Device marks”.
The court, while restraining the US company, also observed that the plaintiff has established that the defendants’ impugned mark/logo consisting of the mark/logo as its leading and essential feature, in the overall context of things, is almost identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ‘Atyati’ registered marks.
