In a recent case at the Madras High Court, Judge N. Senthilkumar turned down a request by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited to stop Joy Crizildaa from posting on social media. The company said Joy's posts were hurting their brand. Here's what happened.
Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, represented by Mr. R. Karthik, wanted a temporary order to stop Joy Crizildaa from making posts they thought were harmful. They said her posts were damaging their brand name "MADHAMPATTY PAKASHALA," which wasn't officially registered. The company argued that Joy's posts on Instagram and YouTube were causing them to lose money by making their brand look bad.
"The actions of the first respondent are clearly harmful, intended to damage the reputation and goodwill carefully built by the applicant/plaintiff."
Joy Crizildaa, represented by Mr. S. Prabhakaran, argued that her posts were personal and not directed at the company. She explained that her posts were about her relationship with one of the company's directors, Madhampatty Rangaraj. Joy said she only mentioned the company to identify Rangaraj, not to damage the business.
"I have simply tagged the 'Madhampatty Pakashala' in a few Instagram posts, where I have shared my marriage photo with the said Madhampatty Rangaraj."
Judge N. Senthilkumar found that Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited did not provide enough proof that Joy's posts caused them to lose money. The judge noted that the company did not show any direct connection between the posts and the claimed loss of income.
"The plaintiff has not made out a case to establish that harmful statements made by the first defendant have caused revenue loss."
The court referred to several past cases, highlighting the importance of free speech. It was mentioned that such orders should not be given easily, especially when they might limit public discussion or personal expression.
"The possibility of using lengthy legal battles to stop free speech must also be considered by the courts."
The court decided that the company did not have a strong enough case to stop Joy's posts. The request was turned down, allowing Joy to keep posting on social media without any restrictions.
This case shows how courts have to carefully balance protecting business interests with ensuring people can express themselves freely. It also highlights the need for solid evidence when claiming financial harm because of social media posts.
