The Delhi High Court has issued a significant interim order restraining Patanjali Ayurved from airing and publishing advertisements that disparage Dabur’s well-known Chyawanprash, following a suit filed by Dabur India alleging harm to its business reputation and misleading advertising practices. According to Dabur, Patanjali’s promotions not only tarnished the brand image of the market leader but also misled consumers regarding comparative product quality.
Dabur approached the court with the contention that Patanjali had broadcast an ad—which, though not naming Dabur explicitly—implied that only Patanjali’s Chyawanprash was the “original” product rooted in ancient Ayurvedic tradition. This presentation, Dabur argued, falsely labeled competing products as “ordinary” and even suggested safety issues with their formulations.
During the hearings, the Court, led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, evaluated Dabur’s plea citing the Consumer Protection Act and the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, both aimed at guarding against false and deceptive advertising. Dabur stressed that the ad had aired hundreds of times—900 instances in just three days—on prominent television channels and prominent newspapers, amplifying the risk to its reputation and consumer trust.
In response, Patanjali argued that its ad merely engaged in “puffery”—a legitimate promotional tactic—and did not directly mention or defame any named competitor. It maintained that its message was grounded in publicly available data and focused solely on the superiority of its own offering.
However, the Delhi High Court found alignment with Dabur's arguments. It recognized that while comparative claims are allowed under precedent (such as Havells v. Amritanshu Trehan), they must not cross the threshold into disparagement or misrepresentation. The Court granted interim relief, restraining Patanjali from continuing such ads and warning against future similar tactics .
This decision reflects a broader judicial impulse to enforce fair advertising practice and protect market integrity. Comparative advertising is permitted, but only when it presents truthful, substantiated, and non-injurious claims. The Court’s order mandates that any future ad campaigns remain within the bounds of honest marketing, avoiding false implications about rivals.
What it means moving forward:
-
For Patanjali: It must withdraw current ads framed as comparative assertions unless independently verified, and avoid any content that diminishes competitors’ reputations.
-
For Dabur: The court’s restraint order is likely to aid its legal battle and preserve its leadership position in the Chyawanprash market.
-
For the FMCG sector: This ruling reaffirms that aggressive comparison-based promotions must tread carefully—relying on factual accuracy and not resorting to indirect denigration.
The case is ongoing and a full hearing is expected to further define permissible boundaries for such advertisements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.