The Delhi High Court has restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited from publishing advertisements against Chyawanprash of Dabur India Limited.

A Suit was filed by Dabur seeking a Decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the advertisements of Yoga guru Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali for their product, namely, “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash”, alleging disparagement and denigration of Plaintiff’s product, namely, ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’, and the entire class of Chyawanprash in general.

A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “… the impugned advertisements, which give the overall message that competitors do not have the know-how to manufacture Chyawanprash in accordance with the traditions and ayurvedic texts, and are ordinary, and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not ayurvedic medicines, as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts, are clearly disparaging in nature. In the present case, context of the usage of the phrase ‘ordinary Chyawanprash’ is clearly negative. Chyawanprash, which is prepared strictly in accordance with the ingredients and formulations listed in any of the ancient ayurvedic texts, as per First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, would be at par and cannot be denigrated as ‘ordinary’.”

The Bench said that the use of the word ‘ordinary’ in the present context would lead an average consumer to infer that the other Chyawanprash are either fake, inferior, or spurious, as compared to the Chyawanprash of the Defendants, which has been prepared by truly following the ayurvedic traditions.

“This is undoubtedly a false statement, when Chyawanprash made by the plaintiff and other manufacturers is also in accordance with the textbooks enlisted as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act”, it added.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi represented the Plaintiff while Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Jayant Mehta represented the Defendants.


Case Background

An Application was filed seeking interim relief qua the impugned Hindi television commercial (TVC) and impugned Hindi print advertisement issued by the Defendants (Patanjali). Another Application sought interim relief qua impugned English print advertisement issued by the Defendants, in relation to their product. As per the Plaintiff (Dabur), by way of impugned TVC and Print Ads, the Defendants disparaged ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ specifically, and Chyawanprash in general, and the same constitutes specific as well as generic disparagement.

Dabur further pleaded that false and misleading statements have been made in the impugned TVC and Print Ads in disparaging comparison with ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and other existing Chyawanprash in the market. It was the case of the Plaintiff that in the impugned TVC and Print Ads, the Defendants have clearly and undisputedly identified, denigrated, and disparaged its ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and disparaged all Chyawanprash in the market. Hence, the Suit was filed seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, and damages for alleged denigration and disparagement. The Applications were filed before the High Court, seeking interim relief to stay on the TVC and Print Ads.

Court’s Observations

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, remarked, “The fact that the plaintiff advertises its products as having 40+ ayurvedic herbs, and the impugned Print Advertisements clearly caution consumers not to settle for Chyawanprash which has 40 ayurvedic herbs, is aimed at identifying the plaintiff’s product. Hence, there is a positive and unmistakable identification of the plaintiff’s product in the impugned Print Advertisements.”

The Court noted that any ayurvedic medicine, including Chyawanprash, which is manufactured as per the ingredients and formulae set out in the authoritative books listed in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, cannot be stated to be inferior or ordinary in comparison to another ayurvedic medicine, by adopting the ingredients and formulae listed in another authoritative Ayurveda book, listed in the First Schedule.

“The intent and overall effect of the impugned advertisements are to negatively portray other Chyawanprash in the market, including, plaintiff’s ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and to denigrate the entire category as ordinary, by conveying the message that they are not prepared as per correct ayurvedic texts, and are therefore, inferior or sub-standard”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court said that to convey a message through the impugned advertisements, that only Patanjali follows the tradition established by great sages, is incorrect and disparages the entire class of Chyawanprash in general.

“… the plaintiff and other manufacturers of Chyawanprash, who manufacture the same in accordance with the ingredients and formulae prescribed in the authoritative books of ayurvedic systems and medicines, follow the ayurvedic traditions. Just because the plaintiff follows a different ayurvedic text book from the one followed by the defendants does not make the product of the plaintiff or other manufacturers of Chyawanprash following other Ayurveda text books as enlisted, as ordinary and not as per the ayurvedic traditions/scriptures”, it observed.

The Court was of the opinion that anybody who manufactures an ayurvedic drug by following the statute and the scriptures as enlisted in the statute, cannot be denigrated as ordinary, when the statute considers it to be as good and permissible ayurvedic drug, i.e., Chyawanprash in this case.

“Therefore, the defendants cannot rubbish the plaintiff or other manufacturers, who manufacture Chyawanprash strictly as per the enlisted ayurvedic scriptures, as ordinary. … Acclamation of one’s products and even stating that they are better than those of the rival is not actionable. However, false representation as to the quality or character of the competitor’s products would fall in the category of disparagement”, it further emphasised.

The Court also emphasised that while dealing with cases of electronic advertisements, Courts have to be mindful of the overall message which an advertisement seeks to communicate.

“It is to be noted that the advertisements in question pertain to an ayurvedic drug, i.e., Chyawanprash. Hence, to an average person who watches the impugned TVC, where Mr. Ramdev, an acknowledged yoga and vedic expert, declares that only the defendants possess the knowledge of ayurvedic texts to prepare original Chyawanprash, they would obviously be influenced by such statements and believe them to be true, and discard other Chyawanprash”, it said.

The Court, therefore, held that this case is clearly that of disparagement. Moreover, it took note of the following two principles –

I. For an action of malicious falsehood, the Plaintiff must prove that the impugned statement/representation is untrue, and that the same is made maliciously, without just cause or excuse.

II. An entity cannot indulge in commercial free speech which tends to maliciously injure a rival/competitor.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court further observed, “… a strong prima facie case of disparagement is apparent in both forms of advertisements, i.e., TVC and Print. … Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, the plaintiff has established a strong prima facie case in its favour. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Further, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss, including loss of reputation, if interim relief, as prayed in the present applications, is not granted.”

Hence, the Court directed that from the Print Advertisements, the Defendants shall delete the first two lines, i.e., “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?”.

“The defendants can accordingly modify the impugned Print Advertisements in both Hindi and English languages. … Similarly, as regards the impugned TVC, the defendants are directed to delete the lines as given in the first three columns of the table showing the story board of the impugned TVC, i.e., ‘Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi Ki Parampara ke Anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge’. Similarly, the defendants are directed to delete the lines as given in the last column of the table showing the story board of the impugned TVC, ‘Toh ordinary Chyawanprash kyu’, from their TVC”, it also directed.

The Court clarified that the Defendants shall be allowed to run the impugned Print Ads and TVC after the aforesaid modifications. It concluded that the other issues and claims made by the Defendants are subject matter of trial in the Suit.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Applications and restrained Patanjali from publishing impugned Print Ads and airing TVC.

Cause Title- Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5232)

Appearance:

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Advocates R. Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, and Meghna Kumar.

Defendants: Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Jayant Mehta, Advocates Rohit Gandhi, Simranjeet Singh, Saurabh Seth, Neha Gupta, Rishabh Pant, Yajat Gulia, and Tina Aneja.

Click here to read/download the Judgment