House no. 316, Ground Floor "A" Sector, Yelahanka New Town Bengaluru- 560 064

1203, The Spire-2, Shital Park BRTS, 150 Feet Ring Road,Rajkot - 360007. INDIA Phone : +91 281 242 731

312-313, 3rd Floor, Abhishek Complex, Akshar Chowk, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390 020 INDIA Phone:91 2822225263

218, Abhisekh Complex Aksharchowk, Old Padra Road
Vadodara 390 020 INDIA
Phone: (0265) 2322015

Battle of Brands: Dabur vs. Patanjali Heads to Delhi High Court

Dabur India Ltd., a long-standing manufacturer of Chyawanprash, approached the Delhi High Court alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and its promoters had published and aired misleading advertisements for “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash” that disparaged Dabur’s product.
The key grievance: Patanjali’s advertisements referred to “ordinary Chyawanprash with 40 herbs” as inferior, while promoting their own product with “51 herbs” as “special,” “original,” and “based on ancient tradition.”
The ads suggested that Chyawanprash with 40 herbs (a clear reference to Dabur’s product) was “ordinary” and potentially unsafe.
Baba Ramdev and Patanjali’s ads emphasized their product as “original” and superior, undermining the reputation of Dabur’s offering.
The use of phrases like “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?” misled consumers into believing that Dabur’s product lacked authenticity or quality.
Dabur sought a permanent injunction, apology, and ₹2 crores in damages.
Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic medicine: The court noted that the formula is based on ancient texts and widely used across the market.
The use of terms like “original” and “ordinary” is misleading, especially when no exclusive claim to originality can be established.
The statements made in the ads—especially by public figure Baba Ramdev— amounted to indirect disparagement, even though Dabur wasn’t named directly.
Freedom of commercial speech does not extend to “misleading puffery” that harms a competitor’s reputation.
The Hon’ble Court passed an interim injunction restraining Patanjali from publishing or broadcasting the impugned advertisements in any form until further orders.
The Court held that comparative advertising must be truthful, fair, and not disparaging, especially in the health and wellness sector where public trust and safety are paramount.

This judgment reinforces important principles:

Puffery has limits—especially in regulated industries like ayurvedic and pharmaceutical products.
Even indirect comparisons or suggestions can amount to actionable disparagement.
Celebrity endorsement does not protect advertisers from legal responsibility if misleading claims are made.
This judgment sets a precedent for regulating advertising language and content in the Ayurvedic and wellness space.

Prepared by : Drashti S. Varmora (Advocate)