Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Restores Ban on Cognizant’s Logo Use in India

by

The Bombay High Court has reinstated an injunction that bars Cognizant Technology Solutions from using its logo in India. The decision, issued on 26 August 2025, marks a setback for the U.S.-based IT services giant as it battles an ongoing trademark dispute with Atyati Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Division Bench Overturns Earlier Relief

A division bench led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne revived a March 2024 interim injunction that had originally restrained Cognizant from displaying or using the contested logo. The bench set aside a June 2024 single-judge order which had temporarily allowed Cognizant to continue using its brand mark while the case was pending.

With the latest ruling, Cognizant must immediately stop using its logo across operations in India until the trademark infringement lawsuit reaches final resolution.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute began when Atyati Technologies, a Bengaluru-based technology solutions provider, alleged that Cognizant’s logo closely resembled its registered device mark. Atyati argued that the similarity could mislead customers and erode its brand identity.

On 19 March 2024, a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte injunction in Atyati’s favour, stopping Cognizant from using the disputed design. However, in June 2024, the same bench withdrew the order after finding that Atyati had not disclosed certain material facts. As a result, Cognizant was allowed to resume using its logo.

The 13 June 2024 order further granted Cognizant interim relief, permitting continued use of the logo during litigation. This relief has now been nullified by the division bench.

Cognizant’s Response

In a statement following the ruling, Cognizant said it would review the court’s order and explore all available legal remedies. The company emphasized its commitment to protecting its brand reputation while ensuring compliance with Indian laws.

What Lies Ahead

The case highlights the increasing importance of trademark protection in India’s IT sector, where global corporations and domestic companies frequently clash over brand identity and intellectual property. The ban could force Cognizant to temporarily rebrand its operations in India, one of its largest markets outside the United States.

The matter will now proceed to a full hearing, where the court will decide whether Cognizant’s logo indeed infringes on Atyati’s registered mark. Until then, the restored injunction will remain in effect.

Bombay High Court Rules on Bollywood Song Copyright Infringement: Legacy Music Rights Cover Digital Platforms

by

In a significant judgment concerning copyright ownership of iconic Bollywood songs, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the daughter of late filmmaker O.P. Ralhan against FMCG giant Adani Wilmar Ltd and others. The plaintiff, Rupali P. Shah, had challenged the continued commercial use of musical works from seven Hindi films produced between 1963 and 1983, alleging copyright infringement.

Background of the Case

Rupali Shah approached the court claiming ownership of music rights to the films Phool Aur Patthar, Talash, Hulchul, Bandhe Haath, Paapi, Spy in Rome, and Return of Mr. Superman. She alleged that the original rights assigned decades ago only included limited usage formats—such as gramophone records—and did not authorize distribution through digital platforms like streaming services or online videos.

The defendants, including Adani Wilmar and other music companies, argued that the rights had been validly and permanently assigned in earlier agreements. They contended that the assignment covered “any and every means whatsoever,” thereby including present and future technologies not known at the time of execution.

Court’s Verdict

Justice Manish Pitale of the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the defendants, interpreting the assignment clauses broadly. The court held that even though the original agreements referred specifically to gramophone records and similar physical formats, the wording also clearly permitted exploitation through “any and every means whatsoever”—a phrase the court deemed expansive enough to include evolving formats like digital and online media.

The judge emphasized that the purpose of such contracts is to ensure commercial use of creative works across technological advancements unless explicitly restricted.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Pitale noted that contractual clauses must be interpreted in light of the parties’ intent and the technological foresight available at the time. The court stated that the assignment’s language was unambiguous and allowed for modern-day commercial use. Therefore, no infringement occurred, and the rights holders’ licenses remain valid in perpetuity.

Significance of the Ruling

This verdict reaffirms that older copyright agreements with broadly worded clauses can still be enforceable in the digital era. The decision provides legal clarity for companies using vintage content, as long as their rights are clearly defined in contracts. It also serves as a precedent for similar copyright infringement disputes involving legacy works and new-age media formats.

Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available court records and news published on LiveLaw.in. It has been rewritten for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All names, references, and legal interpretations are drawn from verified sources at the time of publication. For professional legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.

Bombay High Court Overturns Trademark Refusal for Yamaha’s ‘WR’ Mark; Directs Fresh Review

by

In a significant ruling with implications for global brand protection and Indian intellectual property procedures, the Bombay High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks that denied Japanese automobile manufacturer Yamaha the registration of its ‘WR’ trademark in India. The High Court directed that the matter be reconsidered in accordance with proper legal procedures.

Background of the Case

Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha, the Japanese two-wheeler giant, had applied to register the mark “WR” in India for its upcoming motorcycle lineup. However, the Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application, citing potential confusion with Honda’s existing automobile trademark “WR-V.” The Registrar reasoned that the similarity between the marks could mislead consumers, as both were associated with the automobile sector.

Yamaha challenged the decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the Registrar had failed to consider the global reputation and prior use of the ‘WR’ mark, which the company has employed across international markets since 1990.

Court’s Observations

Justice Manish Pitale, who presided over the case, criticized the Registrar’s order for being inadequately reasoned and procedurally flawed. The Court highlighted that the Registrar did not justify the outright rejection of Yamaha’s application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, nor did it examine whether the case fell under “exceptional circumstances” that would allow bypassing the standard publication and objection process under Section 20(1).

The judge emphasized that the Registrar should have published the trademark application to invite public objections, rather than rejecting it outright without offering Yamaha a fair chance to defend its claim.

Global Reputation and Coexistence

One of Yamaha’s central arguments was its long-standing use of the “WR” mark in over 60 countries, including several markets where Honda’s “WR-V” also exists. The company contended that there had been no significant incidents of consumer confusion internationally, asserting that the Indian market should not be viewed differently without strong evidence.

The Court acknowledged this claim, noting that the Registrar failed to give due weight to Yamaha’s global standing and its specific use of the “WR” mark exclusively for motorcycles, in contrast to Honda’s application of “WR-V” for cars.

Court’s Direction

Setting aside the Registrar’s order, the Bombay High Court instructed that Yamaha’s application be reconsidered afresh. The Registrar has been ordered to issue a public notice inviting objections, as per the standard legal process, and to evaluate the matter based on the objections received—if any.

Justice Pitale clarified that the decision must be based on a proper legal analysis that includes the nature of the marks, their industry classification, and the distinctiveness of Yamaha’s use case.

Legal and Commercial Implications

This ruling sets an important precedent in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It reiterates that trademark authorities must apply procedural fairness and must not arbitrarily reject applications, especially when there is evidence of longstanding international use and brand recognition.

Legal experts suggest this case may influence how authorities interpret the potential for confusion between trademarks in overlapping but distinct product categories, such as two-wheelers and four-wheelers.

What’s Next

Yamaha’s application will now return to the Trade Marks Registry for re-evaluation. The public notice process under Section 20(1) is expected to follow, during which time interested parties, including competitors like Honda, may file objections. A final decision will be taken after evaluating any objections and considering Yamaha’s defense, if needed.

Should Yamaha succeed, the company may proceed with launching its WR-series motorcycles in the Indian market under a trademark that reflects its international branding.

—

Key Legal References:

Section 11(1) – Refusal of registration due to likelihood of confusion

Section 20(1) – Mandatory publication of application for public objections