Chennai, Nov 25 The Madras High Court on Tuesday refused to grant an interim injunction restraining costume designer Joy Crizildaa from hashtagging or tagging the unregistered trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ in her social media posts, despite the catering company’s allegation that her online activity was harming its reputation.
Justice N. Senthilkumar dismissed the plea filed by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, which claimed that Crizildaa, who asserts she is married to one of its directors, T. Rangaraj, was using the brand name on social media to further a personal dispute.
The company alleged that her posts had led to the cancellation of catering contracts worth several crores of rupees.
The injunction petition sought to prevent Crizildaa from making or circulating any alleged defamatory content, including statements, photos, captions, videos or reels, that could damage the goodwill associated with the brand.
It also asked the court to restrain her from tagging or hashtagging any of the company’s brands.
Appearing for Crizildaa, senior counsel S. Prabakaran strongly opposed the grant of any such injunction and filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the allegations.
During the hearing, senior counsel P.S. Raman, assisted by advocate Vijayan Subramaniam, argued on behalf of the catering company that Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality was incorporated in 2010 and had since become a well-recognised name in the catering and food services sector under the brand ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’. The company said its reputation was built through the hard work of its employees, the quality of its food, and substantial investments made in brand promotion, and the brand had earned high-profile clientele across Tamil Nadu, including celebrities, corporates, politicians and government institutions, and had been featured in prominent culinary publications.
However, in July 2025, the firm allegedly found that Crizildaa had begun posting content that it considered defamatory, tagging the company’s brand names and claiming a marital relationship with director Rangaraj.
The plaint asserted that these allegations were "false, concocted and devoid of any factual basis", and were made with "malice and ulterior motive". The company argued that the personal affairs of an individual director could not be used to malign a brand built over years of goodwill, and that Crizildaa’s actions could cause serious reputational and commercial loss.
Along with the injunction, it also sought a direction compelling her to delete all allegedly defamatory posts from her social media accounts.
With the interim plea dismissed, the civil suit will proceed on the merits.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor