Patanjali Ayurved has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a single-judge order that restrained it from running advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur Chyawanprash. The court’s decision came after Dabur filed a petition claiming Patanjali’s ads falsely represented its product as inferior and misled the public by suggesting other manufacturers lacked knowledge of authentic Chyawanprash preparation. The case arose from Dabur’s petition alleging that Patanjali’s advertisements disparaged its Chyawanprash product and other manufacturers in general. A single judge had restrained Patanjali from airing and publishing ads claiming
A bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that the advertisement constituted generic disparagement, making an “obvious reference” to Dabur. The Court noted that statements portraying other manufacturers as ignorant of Ayurvedic traditions and labelling their chyawanprash as “ordinary” were plainly disparaging. The bench also warned Patanjali against pursuing “luxury litigation” or appeals without merit and indicated potential costs for frivolous contentions.
Key Points:
Disparaging Ads: Patanjali’s ads claimed other manufacturers lacked knowledge of authentic Chyawanprash preparation, implying Dabur’s product was inferior.
Court’s Observation: The bench noted that statements like “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” were plainly disparaging and referenced Dabur’s product.
Potential Consequences: If the court finds Patanjali’s appeal to be luxury litigation, it will impose costs.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of truthful advertising and protecting consumer trust. Patanjali will need to reconsider its approach to comparative advertising, ensuring that its claims are substantiated and respectful of competitors. The case highlights the fine line between permissible puffery and disparagement in advertising.
