The Delhi High Court has permitted Patanjali to use the phrase “why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash” in its advertisements but restricted it from referring to Dabur’s “40-herb” product, calling such reference impermissible. The Court said comparative puffery in ads is allowed but cannot directly target a rival brand.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday gave partial relief to Patanjali Ayurved in its fight with Dabur Limited over advertisements for Chyawanprash. The Court modified an earlier interim order that had stopped Patanjali from using the phrase “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” in its promotional campaigns.
A Division Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said that Patanjali can continue to use only the first part of the phrase –
“Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?”
– in its advertisements.
But the company has been stopped from using the part about “40 herbs” since that directly pointed to Dabur’s well-known product.
The Court made it clear that making exaggerated claims in advertisements, known as puffery, is legally permitted.
The Bench noted:
“If the reference to 40 herbs is removed, what remains is only a statement saying ‘why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?’ At the highest, that is puffery.”
The judges further explained that not every use of the word “ordinary” amounts to damaging or disparaging a competitor.
They said:
“Today, comparative advertising has travelled far beyond what it may have been 30 years ago. To say ‘I am the best and others are not as good’ is permissible as puffery.”
The Court also highlighted that consumers today are well aware and unlikely to blindly reject Dabur’s product just because of Patanjali’s wording.
As the Bench observed:
“Enlightened consumers are not likely to abandon Dabur’s product merely because of Patanjali’s use of the word ‘ordinary.’”
With these findings, the Court disposed of Patanjali’s appeal and also recorded Dabur’s consent that the earlier injunction order would be limited only to stopping Patanjali from linking its “ordinary” claim with Dabur’s “40-herb” product.
Therefore, Patanjali can now freely use the line “ordinary Chyawanprash” in its ads, but without connecting it in any way to Dabur’s 40-herb formulation. Other larger issues in the case have been left open for the trial court to decide.
This case started in July 2025 when a single judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice Mini Pushkarna, had found that Patanjali’s advertisement campaign for its “Special Chyawanprash” was not just puffery but crossed the line into disparagement of rival products.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody of Rajesh Khimji & Tehseen Syed in CM Attack Case
Dabur, which controls more than 60% of India’s Chyawanprash market, had complained that Patanjali’s campaign wrongly portrayed Dabur’s version as “ordinary” and not true to Ayurvedic tradition.
In her order, Justice Pushkarna directed Patanjali to remove certain statements, including the line
“Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?”
She also asked the company to cut out parts of TV commercials that suggested that only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare “original Chyawanprash.”
However, the Court clarified that Patanjali could continue running the advertisements after making these changes.
Patanjali then appealed, arguing that its right to commercial speech was being unfairly restricted. The company said that exaggeration was allowed in advertisements and was protected under the legal principle of puffery.
Patanjali also claimed that the word “ordinary” was not aimed at Dabur directly and that its own “special” formulation of Chyawanprash was already cleared by regulators.
It further said that the interim order assumed wrongly that there must be exactly 40 or 51 herbs in Chyawanprash, which was still a matter for trial.
When the appeal was first heard, the Division Bench pointed out that the single judge had not banned the whole advertisement but only asked for small edits.
The judges even warned Patanjali that pursuing the appeal could lead to costs and advised it to think about withdrawing the case.
Despite this, Patanjali continued with its appeal, and now the Bench has given it partial relief by modifying the earlier injunction and allowing use of the phrase “ordinary Chyawanprash” in isolation.
In this case, Patanjali Ayurved was represented by Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Jayant Mehta. Dabur was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi along with advocates R Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, and Meghna Kumar.
Case Title:
Patanjali Ayurved Vs Dabur Limited
Click Here To Read More Reports on Patanjali
