Generic disparagement of a whole class of products, including Chyawanprash, amounts to commercial disparagement

Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali from Disparaging Competitors in Chyawanprash Advertisement Interim injunction granted against Patanjali's advertisement calling other Chyawanprash products 'dhoka,' impacting market leader Dabur  

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, barring it from broadcasting an advertisement that disparages the entire class of Chyawanprash products, including the market leader, Dabur India Limited. The advertisement, which depicted other Chyawanprash products as 'dhoka' or deception, was deemed to constitute commercial disparagement and was found likely to cause irreparable harm to Dabur, despite not explicitly naming the company.

The ruling was delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, who emphasized that while comparative advertising is permissible, it should not extend to misleading or defamatory claims against competitors. The judgment underscored that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution does not protect falsehoods or defamation, and reasonable restrictions apply under Article 19(2).

The court's decision followed Dabur's plea, which highlighted the adverse impact of Patanjali's advertisement on its product's reputation and market share. Dabur, a pioneer in Ayurvedic medicine with a substantial market share of 61.10% in the Chyawanprash category, argued that the advertisement misled consumers to believe that only Patanjali's Chyawanprash held true Ayurvedic benefits, thereby casting doubt on the efficacy of other brands.

In response, Patanjali defended its advertisement as mere puffery, claiming it extolled the virtues of its product without disparaging competitors. However, the court found that the advertisement's use of the word 'dhoka' and its overall message went beyond permissible puffery, amounting to generic disparagement.

Justice Karia highlighted that disparagement of a competitor's products is impermissible and emphasized that advertisers must maintain a distinction between promoting their products and alleging inferiority in competitors' products. The court ordered Patanjali to take down the advertisement from all media platforms within 72 hours and restrained it from using disparaging terms in future advertisements.

The case has been listed for further proceedings on February 26, 2026. The ruling serves as a reminder to advertisers about the limits of creative liberty in advertising and underscores the importance of truthful representation in commercial speech.

Bottom Line:

Generic disparagement of a whole class of products, including Chyawanprash, amounts to commercial disparagement and adversely impacts competitors, even if no specific competitor is identified.

Statutory provision(s): Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 3(a), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sections 149, 151, Order XI Rule 1(4), Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A

Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806219