{"id":11573,"date":"2025-11-14T06:12:01","date_gmt":"2025-11-14T06:12:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11573"},"modified":"2025-11-14T06:18:06","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T06:18:06","slug":"disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/","title":{"rendered":"Disparagement in Ayurvedic Product Advertising"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 \u201cPatanjali Special Chyawanprash\u201d that described other Chyawanprash available in the market\u2014including Dabur\u2019s\u2014as \u201cDhoka\u201d (deception). The advertisement showed a mother feeding her child Chyawanprash, followed by the voice-over \u201cChalo Dhoka Khao,\u201d and featured Baba Ramdev, who declared that \u201cmost consumers are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash.\u201d<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#The_Core_Dispute\" >The Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Plaintiffs_Submissions\" >Plaintiff\u2019s Submissions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Defendants_Submissions\" >Defendants\u2019 Submissions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Judicial_Reasoning\" >Judicial Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/disparagement-in-ayurvedic-product-advertising\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Dabur claimed that the said advertisement directly insulted and defamed the entire class of Chyawanprash manufacturers, creating a false impression that all other brands\u2014including Dabur\u2019s\u2014were 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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.<\/li>\n<li>Reliefs sought:\n<ul>\n<li>Permanent and mandatory injunction against the advertisement<\/li>\n<li>Damages for disparagement and defamation<\/li>\n<li>Take-down of advertisement from all media platforms<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Core_Dispute\"><\/span>The Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute revolved around whether the Patanjali advertisement, which labeled most Chyawanprash products as \u201cDhoka\u201d (deception), amounted to generic disparagement of Dabur\u2019s product and whether such an advertisement was protected under the right to commercial free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u201ccommercial puffery\u201d and that it neither identified nor referred to Dabur\u2019s product, explicitly or implicitly.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"plaintiff-submissions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Plaintiffs_Submissions\"><\/span>Plaintiff\u2019s Submissions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Dabur manufactures Chyawanprash under a valid AYUSH license following classical Ayurvedic formulations.<\/li>\n<li>Any compliant manufacturer cannot be termed deceptive.<\/li>\n<li>Key case laws relied upon:<br \/>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case<\/th>\n<th>Principle Relied On<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 431<\/td>\n<td>Generic disparagement affects market leader<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 718<\/td>\n<td>Indirect disparagement is actionable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Adhikari Brothers, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1427<\/td>\n<td>Generic disparagement of a product category is impermissible<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>HUL v. Reckitt, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2133<\/td>\n<td>False or generic disparagement not protected speech<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Beiersdorf AG v. HUL, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3443<\/td>\n<td>Untrue statements of fact in advertisements are impermissible<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/li>\n<li>The word \u201cDhoka\u201d was a deliberate attempt to malign competitors.<\/li>\n<li>Violation of earlier Division Bench directions in CS (Comm) 1195\/2024.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"defendant-submissions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Submissions\"><\/span>Defendants\u2019 Submissions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Advertisement is protected commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) \u2014 <em>Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>\u201cDhoka\u201d used humorously, part of promotional puffery.<\/li>\n<li>No specific mention or visuals of Dabur\u2019s product.<\/li>\n<li>Permissible comparative advertising:\n<ul>\n<li><em>Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd.<\/em>, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1513<\/li>\n<li><em>Havells India Ltd. v. Amritanshu Khaitan<\/em>, 2015:DHC:2495<\/li>\n<li>A reasonable viewer understands exaggeration<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Commercial speech is protected but subject to Article 19(2) restrictions.<\/li>\n<li>Comparative ads allowed but cannot defame competitors.<\/li>\n<li>Difference: \u201cMy product is better\u201d \u2714 vs. \u201cYour product is bad\u201d \u2718<\/li>\n<li>Use of the strong term \u201cDhoka\u201d suggested deception by all others.<\/li>\n<li>Baba Ramdev\u2019s authority adds weight \u2192 likely to mislead viewers.<\/li>\n<li>Generic disparagement impacts Dabur as market leader.<\/li>\n<li>All AYUSH-licensed manufacturers cannot be termed deceptive.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Dabur established a strong prima facie case.<\/li>\n<li>Balance of convenience in Dabur\u2019s favour.<\/li>\n<li>Irreparable harm to goodwill &amp; reputation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Direction of Court<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Advertisement calling Chyawanprash \u201cDhoka\u201d restrained on all platforms<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Take-down from media including YouTube &amp; Instagram within 72 hours<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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\u2019s reasoning harmonizes constitutional free speech with statutory consumer protection, ensuring that advertising remains competitive but fair.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Dabur India Limited Vs Patanjali Ayurved Limited &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>CS (COMM) 1182\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>06 November 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Mr. Justice Tejas Karia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-11573","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}