Patanjali has appealed a Delhi HC order that forced it to remove lines like “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from its ads. Dabur alleged the campaign disparaged its product, while Patanjali claims it was mere puffery and fair advertising.
New Delhi: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd. have now moved the Delhi High Court in appeal against an order that had directed them to remove certain portions of their advertisements for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash.
The order under challenge was passed earlier by Justice Mini Pushkarna in July 2025, when Dabur had approached the Court objecting to Patanjali’s advertisement campaign.
On July 3, Justice Pushkarna had restrained Patanjali by passing an interim order and directed them to delete specific lines from their campaign. The Court had said that Patanjali could not publish the line
“Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?”
in print advertisements.
Similarly, in television commercials, Patanjali was asked to delete parts of the storyboard that gave the impression that persons who do not have Ayurvedic knowledge cannot make “original Chyawanprash.” The single judge had allowed the ads to continue only after such modifications.
Patanjali has now filed an appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division of the Delhi High Court, contending that this order was legally unsustainable and contrary to well-settled principles of advertising law.
In its submissions, Patanjali has made several arguments. First, it has maintained that its advertisements do not single out Dabur by name or reference.
The company argued that the ads only highlight the qualities of Patanjali Special Chyawanprash and that the assumption of disparagement cannot be based solely on Dabur’s dominant market position.
Secondly, Patanjali has defended the use of the word “ordinary.” According to them, this term has a neutral meaning and cannot be read as derogatory.
In support of this argument, Patanjali relied upon the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Emami v Dabur as well as the Delhi High Court’s decision in Reckitt Benckiser v Wipro, where courts had held that such language in advertisements is not necessarily pejorative.
Patanjali further stated that describing its own product as “Special” is legitimate, as its formulation is directly derived from the Ayurved Sar Sangrah, which is a recognised classical Ayurvedic text mentioned in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Approval for this product was also granted by the licensing authority in Uttarakhand in October 2022. The company pointed out that other well-known brands like Baidyanath also market a product called “Special Chyawanprash” using the same Ayurvedic text.
The appeal also attempted to show inconsistency by bringing up Dabur’s own advertising practices. Patanjali told the Court that Dabur itself claims benefits such as “2x/3x immunity” in its campaigns, and that these claims are not backed by any authoritative Ayurvedic texts.
This, according to Patanjali, shows that comparative advertising is a common practice in the industry.
On the broader legal principle, Patanjali has invoked the doctrine of puffery. It argued that exaggeration and embellishment are a natural and accepted part of advertising, and such puffery is protected as commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Patanjali stressed that unless an advertisement directly identifies a rival’s product and demeans it, puffery cannot be treated as unlawful.
It further argued that advertisements should be assessed in the way an average consumer with an imperfect memory would view them, and not by a frame-by-frame dissection of the commercial.
The company also criticized the single judge’s order as granting premature relief. It said that the order virtually decided the entire case at the interim stage, even though issues like the number of herbs—whether “40” or “51”—used in preparing Chyawanprash are still in dispute and should only be determined after a full trial.
Dabur, in its original suit filed in December 2024, had complained that Patanjali’s advertisement campaign deliberately disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash, which holds more than 60 percent share of the Indian market and is advertised as being made with “40+ herbs.”
Dabur claimed that Patanjali’s campaign amounted to generic disparagement of all other brands by misrepresenting Ayurvedic formulations, questioning Dabur’s authenticity with respect to Ayurvedic tradition, and portraying its product as inferior.
Dabur also submitted that Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic product regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and therefore portraying rival brands as “ordinary” is misleading and undermines public trust.
According to Dabur, Patanjali’s campaign even suggested that consuming non-Patanjali chyawanprash could pose health risks.
Dabur further reminded the Court that Patanjali has previously faced strict observations from the Supreme Court of India in relation to misleading advertisements.
This clash between two of the biggest players in the Chyawanprash market has now become a significant case before the Delhi High Court, raising larger questions about the limits of puffery, comparative advertising, and consumer protection in India’s fast-growing Ayurvedic products sector.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
