Madras High Court Denies Temporary Injunction in Trademark Disparagement Case

Court emphasizes the necessity of prima facie evidence in allegations of trademark disparagement and defamation.

The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice N. Senthilkumar, delivered a significant ruling on November 25, 2025, in the case of Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Ms. Joy Crizildaa. The court dismissed an application for an ad-interim injunction sought by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited against Ms. Joy Crizildaa, who was accused of disparaging the company's trademark, "Madhampatty Pakashala."

The plaintiff, a catering and food services business, claimed that Ms. Crizildaa's social media posts and interviews, which included their trademark, resulted in significant revenue loss and damage to their reputation. They sought a permanent injunction to stop her from making any statements that could harm their business and requested a mandatory injunction to remove allegedly defamatory content from social media.

The court, however, emphasized the need for a plaintiff to establish prima facie evidence of disparagement, including the intent to harm the business and the actual occurrence of revenue loss due to the statements. It found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific pleadings and supporting documents to justify the granting of an interim injunction.

Justice Senthilkumar pointed out that the statements made by Ms. Crizildaa were primarily directed at one of the company's directors, Madhampatty Rangaraj, rather than the company itself. The court held that such statements do not amount to defamation of the company. The judgment highlighted the potential misuse of litigation to suppress free speech, noting that injunctions should not be granted without clear evidence of malicious intent or harm caused by the statements.

The court also referenced several precedents, including "Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International," emphasizing the importance of free speech and public participation. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish a case for temporary injunction and dismissed the application without costs.

Bottom Line:

Trademark disparagement - Temporary injunction cannot be granted without prima facie evidence of statements causing injury to business and revenue loss.

Statutory provision(s): Trademarks Act, Trademark Law, Free Speech Laws, Defamation Laws.

Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v. Ms. Joy Crizildaa, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812845