Dabur filed a lawsuit against Patanjali, co-founded by Baba Ramdev, over claims made in an advertisement for chyawanprash. Dabur alleges that the ad includes misleading statements about the herbs used and product safety. The case is being heard in the Delhi High Court. The dispute highlights the ongoing rivalry between the two major Ayurvedic product brands.
New Delhi: The legal fight between two big Ayurvedic companies, Dabur India and Patanjali Ayurveda, over their popular product, chyawanprash, has caught a lot of attention. Dabur claims that Patanjali’s advertisement spreads false information and goes beyond fair competition, damaging their brand’s reputation.
This case brings up important issues about the limits of honest advertising and what counts as unfair competition. It also reminds people of past controversies where Patanjali faced criticism for misleading claims in its ads.
Also Read: Kerala Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Baba Ramdev For Misleading Patanjali Ads
At the heart of the dispute is a Patanjali advertisement that Dabur claims misrepresents its chyawanprash. Patanjali asserts that its product contains 51 herbs and implies that Dabur’s version has only 40, which Dabur refutes as false.
Furthermore, the advertisement allegedly suggests that Dabur’s chyawanprash contains mercury, indirectly labeling it unsafe for children. Dabur contends that such claims not only harm its reputation but also undermine the trust it has built with consumers over decades.
Conversely, Patanjali defends its advertisement, describing it as self-promotion a common advertising strategy where brands promote their products without directly targeting competitors. Patanjali maintains that it did not name Dabur or make direct comparisons, asserting that its claims are merely promotional and based on public information, like product labels.
This dispute transcends mere branding rivalry; it raises critical questions about the limits of promotional claims in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector, where brands often navigate a delicate balance between creative marketing and potential disparagement.
Patanjali’s defense references the legal precedent established in the Havells India Ltd. vs. Amritanshu Trehan case, where the Delhi High Court ruled that brands can compare their products as long as the comparisons are truthful and do not defame competitors.
However, misleading claims are prohibited. Patanjali argues that its advertisement adheres to these guidelines, framing its message as competitive yet fair.
Recently, the Delhi High Court, under Justice Mini Pushkarna, reviewed the contested advertisement. Dabur argued that the ad subtly undermines its product, casting doubt on its quality and safety without directly naming it. Patanjali countered that any implication regarding Dabur is coincidental, maintaining that the ad promotes its own product.
The court has yet to render a decision, leaving both companies and industry observers in suspense. This case is not merely about market share for chyawanprash; it could establish new standards for acceptable advertising practices in India. A ruling against Patanjali might compel brands to rethink their positioning strategies, especially regarding indirect comparisons. Conversely, if Patanjali’s defense prevails, it could encourage companies to adopt bolder advertising tactics.
Additionally, the implications for consumer trust are significant. Safety claims can have lasting repercussions, even if later disproven. In the Ayurveda sector, which heavily relies on consumer confidence in traditional remedies, the stakes are particularly high.
Also Read: Patanjali Row | SC Orders Removal of Patanjali Ads, Suspends Sales of Restricted Products
This legal confrontation illustrates a clash of philosophies, Dabur, with its century-long legacy, relies on trust and tradition to secure its market position, while Patanjali, a newer entrant, employs aggressive marketing and a ‘swadeshi’ appeal to disrupt the industry. The courtroom has become a battleground for these differing strategies.
As the case progresses, the broader takeaway for the industry is clear: while competitive advertising may be permissible, brands must navigate the line between promotion and factual accuracy with caution. The outcomes from this courtroom could significantly shape how Indian companies approach advertising in the future.