DABUR INDIA LIMITED V. PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED AND ANR 2025:DHC:5232:

DATE: 03/07/2025

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Mini Pushkarna

FACTS:

The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants in relation to advertisements promoting their product, Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' Hindi television commercial (TVC) and Hindi and English print advertisements have specifically targeted and disparaged the plaintiff’s product, Dabur Chyawanprash, as well as the entire category of Chyawanprash products in the market. Interim relief has been sought through I.A. No. 49744/2024 against the TVC and Hindi print advertisement, and I.A. No. 419/2025 against the English print advertisement.

The plaintiff contends that the advertisements issued by the defendants not only make false and misleading statements but also portray Dabur Chyawanprash in a denigrating and unfairly comparative manner. According to the plaintiff, the impugned content constitutes both specific disparagement of its product and generic disparagement of the Chyawanprash category. As a result, the suit has been filed seeking interim relief in the form of a stay on the impugned advertisements, along with a final decree of permanent injunction and damages for denigration and commercial disparagement.

ISSUES:

The central issue in the present case was whether the advertisements—both television commercials (TVCs) and print, issued by the defendants in relation to their product Patanjali Special Chyawanprash amounted to disparagement and denigration of the plaintiff’s product, Dabur Chyawanprash, and Chyawanprash products in general. The plaintiff sought interim relief to restrain the airing and publication of the impugned advertisements on the grounds that they contained false, misleading, and disparaging content against its product and the entire category of Chyawanprash.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Court held that a strong prima facie case of disparagement was made out against the defendants. Consequently, it granted interim relief by directing the defendants to delete specific disparaging statements from the impugned print advertisements and TVCs. The Court permitted the defendants to run the advertisements only after making the specified modifications. All other contested elements of the advertisements were left open for examination during the trial.

The Court derived key principles from previous judgments, highlighting that advertisements must not be false, misleading, deceptive, or unfair, and that freedom of commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to misrepresentations. The Court stressed that even indirect disparagement can amount to actionable misconduct if it creates an identifiable negative impression of a rival's product. In this case, the statements such as “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash” and implications questioning the Ayurvedic knowledge of competitors were found to be suggestive of inferiority and capable of causing reputational harm, despite not naming the plaintiff directly in some instances.

The Court emphasized that Patanjali Special Chyawanprash falls under the category of ASU drugs regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and therefore, any advertising claims must be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Considering that disparagement affects not just market reputation but also public perception, the Court found that the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the advertisements continued in their original form. Furthermore, monetary compensation alone would not suffice in remedying the damage caused by such public disparagement, making interim injunction an appropriate remedy to protect the plaintiff’s commercial interests pending final adjudication.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the fine line between permissible comparative advertising and unlawful disparagement in commercial speech. The Court took a strict stance against advertising content that, even without directly naming a competitor, creates a derogatory impression about rival products through implication or innuendo. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the right to advertise under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot be exercised at the cost of another entity’s reputation. The Court’s emphasis on untruthful and misleading representations being outside the ambit of protected speech reinforces that advertising must remain honest, especially when influencing consumer choice in sensitive markets like health supplements and Ayurveda-based products.

Moreover, the Court’s reasoning underlines the special responsibility that manufacturers of ASU (Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani) drugs bear under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Given the public’s reliance on such products for health and wellness, exaggerated or misleading superiority claims not only risk commercial distortion but also potential public harm. The Court rightly noted that disparagement can cause irreparable injury to a brand’s long-built reputation—something that cannot be adequately remedied through monetary compensation. Hence, interim injunctive relief was deemed appropriate to prevent further reputational damage pending final determination of the case.