025:BHC-OS:2-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.19140 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.19143 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.19140 OF 2024 Atyati Technologies Private Limited ...Appellant (original Plainti V/s.

1.Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation.

2. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited ...Respondents ______________

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hiren Kamod i/b Mr. Abhishek Adke for the Appellant.

Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Ms. V. Mohini, Ms. Aarti Aggarwal & Mr. Karan Khiani & Mr. Rohan Lopes i/b. Ms. Rashmi Singh & Mr. Karan Khiani for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Rashmin Khandekar with Ms. V. Mohini, Ms. Aarti Aggarwal, Mr. Karan Khiani, and Mr. Rohan Lopes i/b. Ms.

Rashmi Singh and Mr. Karan Khiani for Respondent No.2.

______________

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment reserved on: 19 AUGUST 2025.

Judgment pronounced on: 26 AUGUST 2025.

Judgment : ( )

PER: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) This is an Appeal under the provisions of Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 13 June 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Interim Application (Lodging) No.7958 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No.7897 of 2024, by which the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff on 19 March 2024 has been discontinued.

2) The Suit is instituted by the Appellant-Plaintiff alleging infringement of its copyright in ‘ATYATI’ Device Mark, infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered ATYATI Device Mark and ATYATI registered Trademark as well as for the tort of passing off Plaintiff’s impugned services and related products. In the Suit, Plaintiff has filed Interim Application (L) No.7958 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction. The comparison of the marks/logos of the rival parties is as under:

3) By order dated 19 March 2024, learned Single Judge of this Court granted ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Interim Application by restraining the Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s copyright in the artistic work comprised in ATYATI Device Mark and from reproducing /copying the said artistic work or any substantial part of the same in respect of Defendants’ impugned services. Defendants appeared in the Suit and filed affidavit-in-reply dated 27 April 2024 praying that ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted vide order dated 19 March 2024 ought not to be continued on the ground of suppression and misstatement and/or false representation in the Plaint. Defendants contended that if the correct information was disclosed to the Court, the Court would not have been persuaded to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction in Plaintiff’s favour. Defendants mainly contended that Plaintiff had acquired knowledge about the adoption/use of the impugned Mark in March-2022 and by suppressing the said information, it presented a false picture in the Plaint for the purpose of securing ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

4) By impugned order dated 13 June 2024, the learned Single Judge has accepted the contention of the Defendants and has refused to continue ad-interim injunction granted vide order dated 19 March 2024 holding that the Plaintiff had suppressed material information from the Court, which if disclosed, would have resulted in a situation of the Court not granting any ex- parte ad-interim injunction. Plaintiff is aggrieved by non-

continuation of ad-interim injunction vide impugned order dated

13 June 2024 and has accordingly filed the present Appeal.

5) Mr. Kadam, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff would submit that the learned Judge has erroneously accused Plaintiff of making false statement about the acquisition of knowledge of Defendants using the impugned mark in October -2023. That the learned Judge has misconstrued the statement made in Cease-and-Desist