Patanjali vs Dabur: Court curbs disparaging ad lines, allows modified campaign

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has allowed Patanjali Ayurved to continue using the phrase "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash", in its advertisements, but only after removing specific elements deemed disparaging to rival Dabur India’s product. 

This decision comes amid an ongoing dispute over claims of misleading and denigrating marketing tactics.

The ruling stems from a July 3, 2025, interim order by Justice Mini Pushkarna, who restrained Patanjali from airing or publishing ads that included the full phrase "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?" 

The court found that referencing "40 herbs" directly alluded to Dabur Chyawanprash, which is marketed as containing over 40 Ayurvedic herbs and holds a dominant 61.60% market share in the category. 

Such comparisons were ruled to violate the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by implying inferiority in competing products, all of which are regulated as classical Ayurvedic medicines.

Patanjali appealed the single-judge order, arguing against the restrictions. However, during a September 19 hearing, a Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla questioned the merit of the appeal, labeling it potentially as "luxury litigation" and warning of imposed costs if deemed frivolous. 

The bench emphasised that Patanjali's ads constituted "generic disparagement," particularly by suggesting other Chyawanprash brands lack authentic Ayurvedic knowledge.

In addition to barring the "40 herbs" reference, the court prohibited other elements from Patanjali's TV commercials and print ads, including lines like "Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki Parampara ke anuroop, Original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?" (translated: "Those without knowledge of Ayurveda or the Vedas, how can they prepare original Chyawanprash in line with the traditions of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri, and Chyawanrishi?"). 

Another restricted phrase was "Jab shreshtam Patanjali Chyawanprash hai, toh ordinary Chyawanprash kyu?" (translated: "When the best Patanjali Chyawanprash is available, why ordinary Chyawanprash?"). 

These were seen as falsely elevating Patanjali's "Special Chyawanprash" while denigrating the entire class of Chyawanprash products.

The court clarified that after these modifications, Patanjali could resume running its advertisements, striking a balance between commercial free speech and consumer protection. 

"The observations are limited to the interim applications and do not constitute a final expression on the merits," the judgment noted, leaving room for a full trial on broader issues like Patanjali's claims of using "51 precious herbs" or the presence of mercury in its product.