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 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.
