Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Dabur under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction against Patanjali for denigration, disparagement and defamation through their advertisement for chyawanprash, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that calling other chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’ or deceit constituted disparagement of chyawanprash as a class and was not permissible.
Thus, the Court restrained Patanjali from broadcasting the advertisement disparaging the class of chyawanprash and also directed the defendants to block the same from all internet and social media websites.
Background
The plaintiff company, Dabur, founded in 1884, specializes in production of ayurvedic medicines and marketing a diverse range of wellness and healthcare products including chyawanprash.
Dabur submitted that its chyawanprash is manufactured as per the formulae prescribed in the ‘Rasa Tantra Saar Va Siddha Prayog Sangraha’. Dabur’s product is a market leader in the chyawanprash category and enjoys an enviable reputation and goodwill all over India. Dabur had further contended that the very mention of chyawanprash is primarily associated with their product in the minds of the consumers and with decades of history, they have earned widespread recognition for its health benefits, particularly for boosting immunity.
Defendant 1, Patanjali, was founded by Baba Ramdev and specializes in manufacture of various cosmetics, ayurvedic medicines, personal care and food products. Baba Ramdev is the brand ambassador of Patanjali and claims to be an expert in Yoga, Veda and Ayurveda in India.
Dabur submitted that in October, 2025, it had become aware of an advertisement aired by Patanjali on national television channel, Star Plus (‘impugned advertisement’) wherein Patanjali referred to all chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’.
Dabur contended that the manner and storyline of the impugned advertisement conveyed the overall message that Dabur’s as well as the entire class of chyawanprash available in the market are fake inferior products which have no medicinal benefits. Dabur further contended that the impugned advertisement is disparaging Dabur as well as other chyawanprash in order to promote Patanjali’s product and must therefore be taken down.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that though the impugned advertisement did not directly refer to Dabur’s chyawanprash, generic disparagement of all competing products by Patanjali was likely to cause harm to Dabur since Dabur was the market leader in chyawanprash.
The Court further observed that while comparative advertising is permissible, it cannot extend to disparaging a competitor’s product. It is open to an advertiser to highlight that a particular aspect or quality of its product is superior to that of a rival, provided that the overall message of the advertisement is not misleading.
The Court also stated that any factual claim or representation made in an advertisement must be not only accurate, but also free from the potential to mislead. If an advertisement crosses the permissible limits and becomes false, misleading, unfair, or deceptive, it ceases to enjoy the protection afforded by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The test of an advertisement constituting disparagement has to be seen from the point of view of an ordinary reasonable man, i.e., what would be the impact / impression of the advertisement on said reasonable and ordinary person of average intelligence.
The Court observed that in the instant case, the impugned advertisement sought to convey the message that only Patanjali’s product is genuine and all other products in the market are deceptive. This is incorrect and disparages the entire class of chyawanprash in general. The Court opined that as long as the manufacturers of chyawanprash, including Dabur, had a drug license and manufactured as per the Ayurveda books as detailed in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, they could not be said to be deceiving the public. Such a statement would be false representation and not merely puffery.
Furthermore, the Court stated that since the average consumer considers Baba Ramdev a well-known yogi and an authority or ayurvedic practices, his assertion on the quality of other chyawanprash would have a lasting effect on the minds of the public. It would lead the viewers to accept Baba Ramdev’s statement as true and disregard other brands of chyawanprash.
Thus, the Court held that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of Dabur. The balance of convenience was also in Dabur’s favour and an irreparable injury would be caused to Dabur if the ad-interim injunction was not granted.
Accordingly, the Court, till the next date of hearing,
-
Restrained Patanjali and all entities acting through it from issuing, broadcasting or disseminating the impugned advertisement or any other advertisement that refers to chyawanprash from other brands as ‘dhoka’; and
-
Directed the defendants to take down, block or disable the impugned advertisement from all print mediums and electronic mediums including youtube and Instagram.
The matter was further listed for 6-2-2026
[Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., C.S. (COMM) No. 1182 of 2025, decided on 6-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, R. Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, Meghna Kumar, Krisna Gambhir, Advocates
For the Defendant: Rajiv Nayar, Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocates, Rahul Sahay, Rishabh Pant, Neha Gupta, Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Osheen Verna, Pratham Arora, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
