Hashtagging brand name to identify company's director not trademark disparagement: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the use of a company’s brand name as a hashtag in social media posts, when aimed at identifying an individual director, does not amount to trademark disparagement. (Madhampatty Thangavelu v. Joy Crizildaa)

Justice N Senthilkumar held that a hashtag only groups content on a topic and that tagging the brand in posts about an individual cannot, by itself, be treated as an attack on the business.

"The plaintiff has not prima facie established that the first defendant has given statements and uploaded videos by hashtagging the name of the plaintiff with a view to cause injury to the business of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff sustained revenue loss, as a result of the statements given against one of the directors of the plaintiff. Therefore, to reach any conclusion, appropriate pleadings and documents in support thereof, has to be examined and decided during the trial," the Court said.

The company in question, Madhampatty Pakashala, is a hospitality and catering brand founded by the plaintiff Madhampatty Thangavelu. Thangavelu moved court claiming that the respondent's videos and interviews, which included the hashtag Madhampatty Pakashala, were defamatory and resulted in catering order cancellations amounting to ₹11.21 crore. He sought removal of the posts and a restraint on further uploads.

The respondent, Joy Crizildaa, argued that her posts were about her personal relationship, alleged marriage and subsequent disputes with Rangaraj. She stated that she had not made any remark or assertions against the company or its name and that the hashtag was used only to identify Rangaraj, who is associated with the brand. She also said that her statements do not have any connection with the goodwill, reputation and the commercial activities of the company.

Justice Senthilkumar said:

“There is no averment with regard to how the catering orders were made, who booked the orders for the events and how it was cancelled…There is no details either in the affidavit…or in the plaint relating to the communication between the plaintiff and their customers who cancelled the orders.”

The Court described the plaintiff’s cancellation list as insufficient, observing:

“In the absence of any vital details and particulars, the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted… the same are not supported by any document.”

Crizildaa’s statements related solely to her alleged personal relationship and marriage with director Madhampatty Rangaraj, the Court noted.

“The first defendant has not stated anything about the plaintiff.”

Citing dictionary meanings, the Court explained that hashtags are used only to identify the contents on the same topic and to get similar contents. On that basis, it held that the presence of a hashtag cannot transform personal allegations into commercial disparagement unless the posts themselves contain content that targets the business.

The Court reiterated that disparagement requires elements such as criticism, ridicule or falsity intended to cause injury.

“The plaintiff has not made out a case to establish that disparaging statements made by the first defendant against the said Madhampatty Rangaraj has caused revenue loss to the plaintiff company.”

Concluding that no prima facie case was made out, Justice Senthilkumar dismissed the application:

“When the plaintiff has not established a case for temporary injunction, the same cannot be entertained.”

The plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate PS Raman with Advocate Vijayan Subramanian.

The defendant was represented by Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran with Advocate Sudha.

[Read Order]