Delhi High Court Blocks Patanjali's Disparaging Ads Against Competing Chyawanprash Products

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order prohibiting Patanjali Ayurved from broadcasting an advertisement that refers to other chyawanprash products as 'dhoka' (deception). The court directed the company to remove the advertisement from all electronic, digital, and print platforms.

Justice Tejas Karia stated that conveying a message suggesting only Patanjali's product is genuine while others are deceptive is "incorrect and disparages" the entire chyawanprash category. The judge emphasized that manufacturers who follow statutory guidelines for ayurvedic products cannot be denigrated as deceptive when their products are recognized as legitimate ayurvedic medicines.

This interim order was passed in response to a petition from Dabur India seeking an injunction against what they described as a "disparaging" advertisement by Ramdev's Patanjali Ayurved.

The contentious 25-second advertisement titled "51 herbs. 1 truth. Patanjali Chyawanprash!" shows a woman feeding chyawanprash to her child saying "Chalo dhoka khao" (Come, eat deception). Subsequently, Ramdev claims that most people are being deceived in the name of chyawanprash.

The court noted that for average viewers, an advertisement featuring Ramdev, who is recognized as an authority on yoga and vedic practices, asserting that only his product is genuine would create a strong impression and lead viewers to disregard other chyawanprash brands.

In the 37-page order issued on November 6, the court determined that both in tone and intent, the advertisement disparages the entire category of chyawanprash products. The court further stated that Patanjali's disparagement of a whole product class would adversely affect competitors.

Although Patanjali did not specifically target Dabur's product, by referring to all other chyawanprash products as 'dhoka', Dabur—the market leader for chyawanprash—would likely be negatively impacted by the advertisement's disparaging nature.

The court found that Dabur had established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction, with the balance of convenience favoring Dabur over Patanjali. It ruled that Dabur would suffer irreparable injury without an injunction and consequently restrained Patanjali from disseminating the advertisement in any media format.

Patanjali was directed to remove, block, or disable the advertisement from all mediums within three days. The company had argued that the advertisement merely highlighted their product and used "dhoka" as creative expression or puffery, claiming commercial advertising is protected as free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

However, the court determined that the advertisement exceeded permissible puffery, and labeling all other chyawanprash products as deceptive constituted disparagement. It observed that while advertisers may praise their own products, they cannot denigrate an entire class of competing products, especially with potentially misleading statements to consumers.

The court stated that a false advertising campaign would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff, while prohibiting an advertisement that refers to competitors' products as 'deceptive' would not materially affect the defendants, as they remain free to advertise their product without disparaging references.

Previously in July, another judge of the high court had permitted Dabur India Limited's interim applications against Patanjali's advertisements, directing Patanjali to remove the first two lines of an advertisement stating "Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?" Patanjali challenged this order before a division bench, which upheld the directive to remove the offending portion.