Dabur's Allegations
Dabur India Limited, a prominent player in the Ayurvedic consumer goods sector, filed a fresh injunction application against Patanjali Ayurveda. Dabur alleged that Patanjali's advertisement claimed its Chyavanprash was superior due to the inclusion of over 51 herbs, whereas Dabur's product purportedly contained only 40 herbs, labeling it as "ordinary." Additionally, Dabur raised concerns about Patanjali's use of mercury in its Chyavanprash, questioning its safety for children's consumption.
Patanjali's Defense
Represented by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, Patanjali Ayurveda countered that the advertisement constituted mere puffery—a legal term referring to promotional statements that express subjective views, which no reasonable person would take literally. Nayar emphasized that the advertisement did not explicitly reference Dabur's product, nor did it compare specific qualities between the two brands. He argued that the commercial simply portrayed Patanjali's Chyavanprash as the best in the market, a claim permissible under advertising laws.
Legal Precedents and Comparative Advertising
The court's attention was drawn to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Havells India Ltd. and Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors, which delved into the nuances of disparaging advertisements. The ruling clarified that comparative advertising is permissible, provided it is honest and does not defame or mislead consumers about a competitor's product. Patanjali's counsel argued that their advertisement adhered to these principles, as it neither identified Dabur nor denigrated its product.
Court Proceedings and Observations
During the hearing, Justice Mini Pushkarna reviewed the advertisement in question. Patanjali's defense highlighted that the mention of "40 plus herbs" appeared on their product packaging, not within the advertisement itself. They contended that the commercial's focus was on extolling the virtues of Patanjali's Chyavanprash without urging consumers to switch from any specific competitor's product. The absence of direct or indirect references to Dabur, they argued, negated claims of disparagement.
Implications for Advertising Practices
This case underscores the delicate balance brands must maintain in comparative advertising. While puffery allows companies to boast about their products, crossing into disparagement can lead to legal challenges. The outcome of this dispute may further define the boundaries of permissible advertising, influencing how companies craft their marketing strategies to promote their products without infringing on competitors' rights.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's examination of the Dabur versus Patanjali case highlights the complexities inherent in advertising law, particularly concerning puffery and product disparagement. As the court deliberates, the decision will likely have significant ramifications for advertising norms, reinforcing the need for brands to navigate promotional content carefully to avoid legal entanglements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.