Chennai, Nov 25 (NationPress) The Madras High Court has denied an interim injunction that would have prevented costume designer Joy Crizildaa from using the unregistered trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ in her social media hashtags, despite claims from the catering company that her online actions were damaging its reputation.

Justice N. Senthilkumar rejected the request made by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, which argued that Crizildaa, who claims to be married to one of its directors, T. Rangaraj, was exploiting the brand name on social platforms to settle a personal score.

The company asserted that her posts caused the cancellation of catering contracts amounting to several crores.

The injunction sought to bar Crizildaa from creating or sharing any content deemed defamatory, including statements, images, captions, videos, or reels that could tarnish the brand’s reputation.

Additionally, it requested the court to restrain her from tagging or hashtagging any of the firm's brands.

Counsel S. Prabakaran, representing Crizildaa, strongly opposed the injunction and submitted a thorough counter affidavit challenging the allegations.

During the proceedings, senior counsel P.S. Raman, supported by advocate Vijayan Subramaniam, argued on behalf of the catering company that Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality was established in 2010 and had become a renowned name in the catering and food services industry under the brand ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’. The firm emphasized that its reputation was cultivated through dedicated employee efforts, food quality, and significant investments in brand promotion, leading to a distinguished clientele throughout Tamil Nadu, including celebrities, corporations, politicians, and government entities, and featuring in notable culinary publications.

However, in July 2025, the company claimed that Crizildaa began posting content it viewed as defamatory, tagging the company's brands and asserting a marital connection with director Rangaraj.

The complaint stated that these claims were “false, fabricated, and lacking any factual basis” and were made with “malice and ulterior motives”. The company contended that personal matters of a director should not be used to tarnish a brand built over many years of goodwill, asserting that Crizildaa’s actions might lead to serious reputational and financial damage.

Alongside the injunction, the company also sought a court order mandating her to remove all allegedly defamatory posts from her social media.

With the interim plea dismissed, the civil suit will continue to be assessed on its merits.