Disparagement in Ayurvedic Product Advertising

Facts

Dabur India Limited, a household name in the field of Ayurveda since 1884, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against what it termed as a false, malicious, and disparaging advertising campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its associate company, Patanjali Foods Limited. Dabur contended that Patanjali had issued an advertisement for its product “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash” that described other Chyawanprash available in the market—including Dabur’s—as “Dhoka” (deception). The advertisement showed a mother feeding her child Chyawanprash, followed by the voice-over “Chalo Dhoka Khao,” and featured Baba Ramdev, who declared that “most consumers are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash.”

Dabur claimed that the said advertisement directly insulted and defamed the entire class of Chyawanprash manufacturers, creating a false impression that all other brands—including Dabur’s—were fake, inferior, and deceptive. Dabur, being the market leader with over 61% market share and having introduced Chyawanprash commercially in 1949, asserted that this advertisement had a direct and irreparable impact on its goodwill and consumer trust.

Procedural Background

• The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• Reliefs sought:
  • Permanent and mandatory injunction against the advertisement
  • Damages for disparagement and defamation
  • Take-down of advertisement from all media platforms

The Core Dispute

The dispute revolved around whether the Patanjali advertisement, which labeled most Chyawanprash products as “Dhoka” (deception), amounted to generic disparagement of Dabur’s product and whether such an advertisement was protected under the right to commercial free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Dabur argued that the advertisement directly attacked all Chyawanprash products and, by necessary implication, disparaged its own product, which dominates the market. Patanjali, on the other hand, claimed that the advertisement merely exercised its right to “commercial puffery” and that it neither identified nor referred to Dabur’s product, explicitly or implicitly.

Plaintiff’s Submissions

• Dabur manufactures Chyawanprash under a valid AYUSH license following classical Ayurvedic formulations.
• Any compliant manufacturer cannot be termed deceptive.
• Key case laws relied upon:
  

  Case	Principle Relied On
  Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 431	Generic disparagement affects market leader
  Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 718	Indirect disparagement is actionable
  Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Adhikari Brothers, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1427	Generic disparagement of a product category is impermissible
  HUL v. Reckitt, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2133	False or generic disparagement not protected speech
  Beiersdorf AG v. HUL, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3443	Untrue statements of fact in advertisements are impermissible

• The word “Dhoka” was a deliberate attempt to malign competitors.
• Violation of earlier Division Bench directions in CS (Comm) 1195/2024.

Defendants’ Submissions

• Advertisement is protected commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) — Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL.
• “Dhoka” used humorously, part of promotional puffery.
• No specific mention or visuals of Dabur’s product.
• Permissible comparative advertising:
  • Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1513
  • Havells India Ltd. v. Amritanshu Khaitan, 2015:DHC:2495
  • A reasonable viewer understands exaggeration

Judicial Reasoning

• Commercial speech is protected but subject to Article 19(2) restrictions.
• Comparative ads allowed but cannot defame competitors.
• Difference: “My product is better” ✔ vs. “Your product is bad” ✘
• Use of the strong term “Dhoka” suggested deception by all others.
• Baba Ramdev’s authority adds weight → likely to mislead viewers.
• Generic disparagement impacts Dabur as market leader.
• All AYUSH-licensed manufacturers cannot be termed deceptive.

Decision

• Dabur established a strong prima facie case.
• Balance of convenience in Dabur’s favour.
• Irreparable harm to goodwill & reputation.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the boundary between permissible commercial puffery and unlawful disparagement. It underscores that freedom of commercial speech cannot be used as a shield for misleading the public or defaming competitors. While companies may extol their own products, they cannot malign others under the guise of comparative advertising. Particularly when the subject matter concerns Ayurvedic or medicinal formulations governed by statutory standards, false or misleading claims are strictly impermissible. The Court’s reasoning harmonizes constitutional free speech with statutory consumer protection, ensuring that advertising remains competitive but fair.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi