Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited has approached the Madras High Court to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa, who claims to have married one of many administrators of the catering firm, from disparaging the “goodwill and reputation” of the unregistered trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala.’
Justice N. Senthilkumar, on Tuesday (September 9, 2025), ordered discover, returnable by September 16, to the costume designer in a civil go well with filed by the catering firm and permitted the corporate’s counsel on document Vijayan Subramanian to challenge non-public discover too to her for the reason that case was scheduled to be heard subsequent inside per week.
Brand repute
During the course of arguments, senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing the plaintiff firm, mentioned it was integrated on August 30, 2010 and made a mark within the catering and meals providers enterprise beneath the model title ‘Madhampatty Pakashala.’ It had turn out to be very talked-about over the years.
Stating its recognition was because of the arduous work of people concerned within the enterprise and the standard of meals served by them, the senior counsel mentioned the corporate had additionally invested a considerable sum of cash to create consciousness among the many public with regard to its prime quality catering service.
The concerted efforts had led to the model ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ changing into a trusted title within the hospitality business and its clientele included eminent personalities, celebrities, politicians, corporates in addition to authorities and personal establishments. It had additionally been coated broadly in culinary journals and different media.
Joy Crizildaa’s social media posts on Rangaraj
However, in July 2025, the corporate got here to learn about Ms. Crizildaa having begun to publish defaming messages on her social media handles by hastagging the corporate’s model title Madhampatty Pakashala, Madhampatty group of firms and different manufacturers related to it, Mr. Raman mentioned.
On its half, the corporate, in its plaint, mentioned: “The trademark of the plaintiff is being wilfully defamed by the first defendant (Ms. Crizildaa), who, with malice and ulterior motive, has been propagating false and scandalous allegations that she shares an alleged marital relationship with Rangaraj, one of the directors of the plaintiff.”
The plaint went on to learn: “These allegations are wholly false, concocted, and devoid of any factual basis, and have been deliberately made to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ and other brands and its management before the public.”
Stating the private affairs of a person director couldn’t be used to disparage the repute of the corporate constructed over years of hardwork, dedication and goodwill; the plaintiff mentioned, such acts of the defendant would trigger critical reputational and industrial loss to the corporate.
The plaintiff urged the courtroom to restrain the defendant from tagging, hashtagging, making, writing, importing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting, circulating, or disseminating any false or malicious materials, statements, movies, reels, captions or images disparaging the “goodwill” of Madhampatty Pakashala.
It additionally sought a course to her to delete the defamatory posts made in her social media handles and accounts.
