Chyawanprash Advertisement - Disparagement in advertisements not rendered non-disparaging by the removal of specific words

Calcutta High Court Grants Injunction in Chyawanprash Advertisement Dispute, Court Rules Against Baidyanath in Disparagement Case Filed by Dabur India Limited

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, has granted an interim injunction against Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. This judgment comes in response to an appeal by Dabur India Limited, which accused Baidyanath of disparaging its Chyawanprash product through misleading advertisements.

The case was rooted in Dabur's allegations that certain advertisements by Baidyanath contained disparaging materials, particularly concerning Dabur's Chyawanprash, an Ayurvedic health supplement. The advertisements in question were challenged for suggesting that Baidyanath’s product had superior qualities, citing "42 ingredients" as a distinguishing factor.

Earlier, a Single Judge had partially granted Dabur's plea by issuing an injunction against several materials but allowed two specific advertisements, identified as Annexures-J and K, to continue with the stipulation that the phrase "42 ingredients" be removed. However, Dabur contended that this removal did not address the overarching disparaging context of the advertisements.

Upon hearing the appeal, the Division Bench concurred with Dabur's argument. The court observed that simply eliminating specific words did not mitigate the disparaging nature of the advertisements. The Bench highlighted that the statutory requirements for the manufacture of Chyawanprash, which Dabur adhered to, were being undermined by Baidyanath's claims.

The Bench further noted Baidyanath's lack of representation during the appeal hearings. Despite repeated calls and the publishing of the cause list, Baidyanath failed to present a valid reason for adjournment or to adequately represent their case. This conduct led to the dismissal of Baidyanath's appeal against the impugned judgment.

Consequently, the court modified the previous order, granting a broader interim injunction that prevents Baidyanath from using the contentious advertisements in any form, thereby upholding the integrity of Dabur’s product and advertising practices.

The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting brands from misleading and disparaging advertising, reinforcing the importance of fair competition and adherence to statutory guidelines in product promotion.

Bottom Line:

Disparagement in advertisements - Court held that advertisements containing disparaging materials cannot simply be rendered non-disparaging by the removal of specific words if the overall context remains disparaging.

Statutory provisions: Intellectual Property Law, Disparagement in advertisements, Appeal Conduct

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. v. Dabur India Limited, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2820924