The Delhi High Court grilled Patanjali over its chyawanprash ad calling all other brands “dhoka,” asking, “How can you call everyone fraud?” Dabur, holding a 61% market share, alleges the ad defames and misleads consumers by branding competitors as deceptive.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Dabur India’s request for an interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved’s new advertisement for its “Special Chyawanprash.”
Dabur has accused Patanjali of defamation, unfair competition, and disparagement after the ad allegedly called all other chyawanprash brands “dhoka” (fraud or deception).
During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia asked Patanjali’s lawyers how the company could describe chyawanprash made by other companies as “dhoka.” The judge observed that while Patanjali was free to promote its product as the best, it could not call others fraudulent.
The Court asked,
“Use the word inferior, what’s the problem? This is not the representation [from the advertisement]. You are saying everyone is dhoka, and I am genuine. How can you call all other chyawanprash dhoka? You can say inferior, but you can’t call them fraud… Is there no other word available in the dictionary which can be used other than dhoka,”
The Court also commented that the word “dhoka” carries a negative and insulting meaning. “Dhoka is a negative word, derogatory. You are saying they are fraud and people are eating fraud,” the Bench remarked.
Dabur India has taken Patanjali to court, alleging that its television advertisement misleads customers by claiming that
“most people are being duped in the name of Chyawanprash”
and calling other brands “Dhoka.”
The commercial promotes Patanjali’s product as the only “original” Chyawanprash with the “true power of Ayurveda.”
According to Dabur’s petition, the ad is designed to damage the reputation of its flagship product, Dabur Chyawanprash, which has been the market leader since 1949 with a 61% market share.
The company claims the ad misleads consumers and lowers public trust in all Chyawanprash manufacturers by branding them as “fraud.” The plaint also describes this as “generic disparagement” of the entire Chyawanprash industry, which can harm consumer faith in Ayurvedic health supplements.
Dabur further argued that Patanjali made false claims that its Chyawanprash contains “51 Ayurvedic herbs and saffron,” although a 2014 government advisory had found this same claim misleading.
ALSO READ: Judiciary Exists for Citizens, Judges Are No More Feudal Lords: CJI BR Gavai
The company also pointed out that using “Special” as a prefix in the name of a traditional Ayurvedic medicine goes against Rule 157(1-B) of the Drugs Rules, which bars deceptive labelling of Ayurvedic products.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Dabur, said that chyawanprash is a general class of Ayurvedic product, and by referring to all others as “dhoka,” Patanjali is disparaging every other manufacturer.
Sethi said,
“To call somebody dhoka is, per se, ex facie, disparaging. They may say ‘I don’t identify you’, but they paint everybody with the same brush… Coming from a self-proclaimed yoga guru, it is far more serious because people identify with a yoga guru with some sense of truthfulness,”
He added that Dabur manufactures its Chyawanprash according to prescribed Ayurvedic scriptures and therefore cannot be called fraudulent.
He said,
“It is all being done to create panic. I have 100-year-old company. I have a 61% share. There have been 9 crore views [of the advertisement] in a matter of 5 days. This is how sensitive the people are,”
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Patanjali, defended the advertisement by arguing that it was only “puffery” and “hyperbole,” which are permissible in advertising.
He said,
“We have to see the entire meaning that the advertisement is conveying. Right or wrong, it is hyperbole. I am saying all others are ineffective. I am trying to convey that ‘forget about other chyawanprash, consume only mine’. I am allowed to say that I am the best. I am saying all others are inferior in comparison to mine,”
Nayar further added that Dabur was being overly sensitive about the matter.
He asked,
“There is no reference to the plaintiff. Why is he so hypersensitive? Just because he is the market leader?”
He also reminded the Court that Dabur had earlier filed a case against Patanjali over a previous advertisement and had failed to get an injunction then as well. The Delhi High Court Division Bench had earlier allowed Baba Ramdev’s company to use the phrase “ordinary chyawanprash” in its advertisements.
After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its judgment on Dabur’s plea for an interim injunction.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Dabur along with advocates R Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, and Meghna Kumar. Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayyar and Jayant Mehta, along with advocates Neha Gupta and Rishabh Pant from Athena Legal, represented Patanjali.
Case Title:
Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Corruption Case
