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.
”
Get App
Home
News
Exclusives
Events
Awards
More
Login
Exclusives
Webinars
Brand Solutions
Advertise With Us
Law and Policy
Corporate and Business
Litigation
Deals and Appointment
Regulators
Editor’s Desk
In Conversation With
Opinions
International
MasterClasses
Newsletters
About Us
Contact Us
Download App
Save your favourite articles with seamless reading experience
WhatsApp Channel
Tune in to know the latest updates on the legal sector
Litigation
2 Min Read
Madras HC declines to restrain designer from using ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ hashtag
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.
Online Bureau IANS
Published On Nov 25, 2025 at 05:34 PM IST
Copy Link
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
Share on X
Share on Telegram
Share on Facebook
Chennai, 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.
Advt
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.
EXECUTIVE WORKSHOP
Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) 2023
Learn the technicalities of the DPDP Act 2023 & it’s implications on businesses.
Fri, 12 Dec 2025, 09:00 AM
1 Day
Register Now
EVENT
Global Legal Convention 2026
As technology reshapes every facet of governance, trade, and corporate strategy, the legal world stands at a historic inflection point. The ETLegal Global Legal Convention 2025- 26—themed “Law Goes Digital: The Rise of the Digital Lawyer”—will explore how digital transformation is redefining law, justice, and legal leadership in India and across the world.
Fri, 13 Mar 2026
Mumbai
Register Now
AWARD
Global Legal Awards 2026
ETLegalWorld proudly presents the 3rd edition of the prestigious ‘The Economic Times Global Legal Awards 2025-26’, dedicated to rewarding excellence and celebrating innovation, leadership, and impact across the global legal profession.
Nominations till Tue, 10 Feb 2026
Nominate Now
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.
Advt
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 relationsh
