Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Airing and Publishing Misleading Chyawanprash Advertisements held liable for Disparaging Dabur’s product

Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Airing and Publishing Misleading Chyawanprash Advertisements held liable for Disparaging Dabur’s product

DABUR INDIA LIMITED v. PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED AND ANR.

2025 DHC 5232 (Jul 3, 2025)

In this case, the Petitioner, filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the advertisements of the defendants 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.

Two applications were filed by the Petitioner, I.A. No. 49744/2024 was filed seeking interim relief against Hindi television commercial and Hindi print advertisement issued by the defendants herein referred to as ‘Patanjali’. The second being, I.A. No. 419/2025 was filed seeking interim relief against English print advertisement. The said TVC and Hindi and English print advertisements were issued by the defendants in relation to their product, “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash”.

Further, It is the case of the plaintiff that in the TVC and Print Advertisements in question the defendants have clearly and undisputedly identified, denigrated and disparaged plaintiff’s “Dabur Chyawanprash‟ and disparaged all Chyawanprash in the market.

It was alleged by the petitioner that in the T.V Commercial and print advertisement the Defendant has mentioned about ’40 herbs’ and urging consumers not to settle for or buy Chyawanprash containing 40 herbs. But, the petitioner is a leader in the market with Chyawanprash product category with 61.60% market share as of October, 2024. Moreover, Dabur Chyawanprash is well known and advertised as containing “40+ herbs‟.

It was contended by the petitioner that TVC, specifically the line, “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki Parampara ke anuroop, Original Chyawanprash kaise bana payinge?”, falsely conveys to the customers that only the defendants have the knowledge to prepare Chyawanprash and other manufacturers do not follow the correct tradition and consequently, that the other products available in the market are ordinary, that is fake.

More importantly, Rule 161(3)(i) of the Drug Rules, 1945 , mandates that the name of the ASU drug for which license has been obtained should be the same as mentioned in the authoritative books as per First Schedule of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, defendants were required to name their ASU drug product -Patanjali Chyawanprash (Special)‟, and not Patanjali Special Chyawanprash, as it changes the whole context of the word “special‟ and disparages other Chyawanprash products as well. Use of prefix “special‟ is also violative of Rule 157(1B) of the Drug Rules.

On the other hand, the Defendants argued that product is based upon the formulation titled, “Special Chyawanprash‟, prescribed in the Ayurved Sar Sanhita authoritative text. The name of defendants product is in accordance with the one provided in the authoritative text and thus, not violative of Rule 157(1B) of the Drug Rules.

Further, the defendant holds a valid license from the Licensing Officer, Ayurvedic & Unani Services, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, for manufacturing its product in the name of “Special Chyawanprash‟.

The defendant further argued that ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash contains the label-“1-2 tablespoon with warm milk in the morning and evening or as directed by physician” and also cautions diabetic patients regarding consumption. Arguendo, even if there is any issue with respect to the labelling of their product, the same could only be actionable under Section 331(2) read with Section 33M of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Decision

After hearing both the parties the High Court observed that misleading advertisement is one which confuses the customer and affects their economic behaviour by misrepresenting claims, either with respect to advertiser’s own product or that of any competitor’s product. When tricky language is used to perpetrate falsity and disguise deception, the consumer is said to be misled.

Further the Court stated as under:

Para 23- “Any attempt of an advertiser to portray a rival’s goods or service in a negative light, by either making false statements or using ambiguous or deceptive visual and audio aids, will constitute disparagement. Negative insinuation campaigns in the name of advertising are impermissible as they go against the best interest of the public at large. In case of disparagement, a number of factors, including, the intent, manner, storyline, mode, use of celebrities as endorsers, etc.have to be looked into, in order to determine the capacity and degree of deception. Advertisements cannot urge people not to buy a certain product as the same constitutes disparagement. Therefore, any representation by an advertiser which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence and is likely to materially distort economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product is disparagements.”

The Court analysed the Rules 157 and Rule 161 of the Drug Rules, 1945 and opined that ayurvedic medicines and their production, manufacturing, sale as well as their branding and marketing are statutorily regulated in India. Therefore, as a natural corollary, any marketing of an ASU drug covered under the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, whether in the form of an advertisement, or otherwise, apart from ensuring compliance with advertising and commercial practice laws, must be in strict compliance of the said Act and its Rules.

Para 32: “it is manifest that lower threshold for tolerance of untruthfulness is the norm in the law relating to disparagement and degree of comparative advertising permissible in the context of medicinal preparations, especially, regulated drugs, including ASU drugs. The law of disparagement as it stands today is well-settled. However, what emerges from the combined reading of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Advertising Code of ASCI, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act & Rules, and the notification dated 19th January, 2021 of the AYUSH Ministry, is that the test of disparagement and misrepresentation in the context of regulated drugs must be measured on a separate and stricter scale. The examination of the likelihood of deception and level of untruthfulness has to be more stringent in order to safeguard the interest of the public at large. Advertisers cannot be permitted to exploit their right to commercial freedom of speech by resorting to false, baseless and untruthful representations in the context of medicinal preparations and drugs. What might be permitted by way of comparison or puffery in case of a toilet cleaner might not be permissible when the product involved is a regulated drug. The consumer must not be misled to believe in false efficacy or superiority of a regulated drug in the name of commercial freedom of speech, especially, if the drug or medicinal preparation in question is known to be widely consumed and such misrepresentation is made with the knowledge of its capacity of confusion and alteration of financial transactional behaviour of consumer in respect of such drug or medicine.”

Further on the issue of disparagement, the Court referred to the case of Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. 2004 SCC OnLine Del 1082 wherein the defendant’s application to modify its impugned advertisement and replace the phrase ‘Lal Dant Manjan Powder‟ (red tooth powder) with “Sadharan Dant Manjan Powder‟ (ordinary tooth powder) was rejected and held as under:

Para 5: “Thus the Division Bench of this Court in Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd;, 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Delhi), and two orders of the learned Single Judge held that rival product cannot be disparaged. It has also been held that the generic disparagement of a class or genre of the product is not permissible. Considering the fact that in the proposed advertisement suggested by the defendant in the present application the word “Lal‟ qualifying Dant Manjan has been removed yet the harmful affect of Dant Manjan in general amplified in the proposed advertisement by calling it “sadharan” dant manjan which is (khurdara) abrasive on the teeth still falls within the prohibition of generic disparagement proscribed by the judgment of this Court dated 9th September, 2004 and in this form is not permissible. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.”

The use of the word “ordinary‟ 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.

Similarly, in Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others (1995) 5 SCC 139 it was held as under:

Para 17.- The First Amendment under the United States Constitution, our Constitution itself lays down in Article 19(2) the restrictions which can be imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The “commercial speech” which is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article 19(2) of the Constitution and can be regulated/prohibited by the State.

In Dabur India Limited V. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd 2004 SCC OnLine Del 718 the Court held as under:

Para 19- “I am further of the view that generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying or pin pointing the rival product is equally objectionable. Clever advertising can indeed hit a rival product without specifically referring to it. No one can disparage a class or genre of a produce within which a complaining plaintiff falls and raise a defence that the plaintiff has not been specifically identified.”

In the case of Gillette India Limited Versus Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126 The Madras High Court held as under:

Para 103-“In granting interim relief of injunction, the Court is required to examine whether the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case, whether pecuniary compensation would afford the plaintiff applicant for injunction adequate relief and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of passing of an interim order in favour of the plaintiff applicant.”

Para 104- “In judging the balance of convenience, the Court would have to weigh the competing interest of the applicant for injunction and the party opposing injunction and address to itself the question of who would suffer greater prejudice - the plaintiff applicant for injunction by refusal of injunction, if the proceedings ultimately succeeded, or the respondent by grant of injunction, if the suit ultimately failed.”

Para-105- “If in a suit for disparagement in relation to an advertisement a strong prima facie case of disparagement is made out, injunction would necessarily have to be granted, for pecuniary compensation could never compensate defamation and/or disparagement. By grant of injunction, the opposite party would only be restrained from disparaging the applicant for injunction till a final decision was taken by the Court. The prejudice to the applicant for injunction by continuous exhibition of disparaging advertisements would be irreparable, and far greater than the prejudice to the opposite party, if the applicant ultimately succeeded.”

Accordingly, the High Court ordered Patanjali to remove the lines, i.e., “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” and modify its Print Advertisements in both Hindi and English languages. The Court also directed Patanjali to delete from the TVC the line i.e., “Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi Ki Parampara ke Anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge.”

The Court further ruled that advertisements cannot urge people not to buy a certain product as the same constitutes disparagement. Therefore, any representation by an advertiser which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence and is likely to materially distort economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product is disparagement.

Finally, the defendants were restrained from publishing the impugned Print Advertisements and airing the TV Commercial. With the directions mentioned above applications were disposed of by the Delhi High Court.

Click here to access the full Judgment