Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by Dabur against Patanjali, wherein Dabur alleged that Patanjali disparaged ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ specifically and other chyawanprash generally by calling them ‘ordinary’, the Single Judge Bench of Mini Pushkarna, J, * held that Patanjali’s advertisement identified Dabur’s product and called it ordinary which amounted to disparagement. Thus, the Court allowed the petition. The Court restrained Patanjali from airing disparaging advertisements and directed it to remove the offending statements from its advertisements.
Background
Dabur alleged that Patanjali had, by way of their television commercial and print advertisements, made false and misleading statements and disparaged ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and other chyawanprash by calling them ‘ordinary’.
The impugned television commercial had portrayed to the customers that only Patanjali had the knowledge to prepare chyawanprash and other manufacturers did not follow the correct tradition, and their products were consequently fake. The impugned print advertisement portrayed ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’ as a superior alternative to ‘ordinary’ chyawanprash as the ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’ contained 51 herbs while other ordinary chyawanprash contained only 40 herbs.
Dabur had contended that Patanjali could not be permitted to state that only they had the requisite knowledge of the Vedas to prepare chyawanprash as it was an ASU drug, regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act) and was prepared in strict accordance with the formulation and ingredients mentioned in the First Schedule of the Act. Furthermore, they contended that labelling any chyawanprash containing 40 herbs as ‘ordinary’ was a direct reference to ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ which is advertised as having 40+ herbs. Dabur had contended that such a reference would make the consumer immediately connect it to the plaintiff’s product.
Patanjali on the other hand had contended that the impugned advertisements were instances of puffery where the positive attributes of the ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’ were highlighted and customers were encouraged to buy the same. They had also averred that comparative advertisements were permissible and such puffery did not amount to disparagement.
Analysis, Law and, Decision
The Court noted that from a bare perusal of the impugned advertisements it could be gleaned that they aimed to portray that other existing chyawanprash in the market were ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products which were not prepared in accordance with ancient ayurvedic texts and traditions. The Court further noted that the impugned television advertisement was narrated by Mr Ramdev who is a known yoga guru in India and is recognised as someone who has knowledge of the Vedas. Thus, the narrative of the advertisement had assumed more importance coming from the mouth of a person who was a popularly known expert in the field.
The Court further noted that chyawanprash was an ayurvedic medicine as defined under Section 3(a) of the Act that included all medicines intended for internal or external use, which were manufactured in accordance with the formulae described in the authoritative books of ayurvedic systems of medicine, as specified in the First Schedule of the Act. Thus, it was not mandatory for a manufacturer to first have ‘knowledge’ of Ayurveda and Vedas to make chyawanprash.
The Court also noted that any product manufactured in accordance with the ayurvedic texts prescribed under the Act would be authentic and calling them ‘ordinary’ would be misleading and disparaging since ‘ordinary’ in that case would denote that the product in question was inferior or fake.
The Court further noted that the fact that Dabur had advertised its products as having 40+ ayurvedic herbs and the impugned print advertisement cautioned the consumers to not settle for chyawanprash which had 40 ayurvedic herbs was aimed at positively and unmistakably identifying Dabur’s products.
The Court also stated that while comparative advertisement was permissible since it was a facet of right to commercial freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a misleading advertisement that confused the consumer and affected their economic behaviour by misrepresenting claims with respect of either the advertiser’s own product or its competitors’ products was not allowed. The threshold at which Courts analysed disparagement and misrepresentation in commercial practise is much higher and stricter when the product being advertised can have a detrimental impact on the health of the consumer. The examination of the likelihood of deception and untruthfulness must be more stringent to safeguard the interest of public at large.
The Court therefore noted that the impugned print advertisements were a form of specific disparagement of Dabur’s products, and the impugned television advertisement was an instance of generic disparagement against the entire class of chyawanprash.
Accordingly, the Court restrained Patanjali from publishing and airing the impugned advertisements and directed Patanjali to delete the lines disparaging Dabur’s products from its print advertisements. Patanjali was also directed to delete from the television commercial the statement claiming they were the only one who prepared the chyawanprash with ancient ayurvedic knowledge as well as the statement calling other chyawanprash ordinary.
[Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4680, decided on 3-7-2025]
Judgement authored by- Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sandeep Sethi (Senior Advocate), R. Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, Meghna Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Rajiv Nayar, Jayant Mehta (Senior Advocates), Rohit Gandhi, Simranjeet Singh, Saurabh Seth, Neha Gupta, Rishabh Pant, Yajat Gulia, Tina Aneja, Advocates
