Introduction:

In the matter of Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. v. Dabur India Limited [FAO(OS)(COMM)-140/2025], the Delhi High Court division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was called upon to decide an appeal filed by Patanjali against a single judge’s interim order which had restrained it from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash. The dispute centered on Patanjali’s TV commercial that compared its own Chyawanprash product with what it termed as “ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs” and further questioned how others without Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare the original formulation in line with the traditions of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri and Chyawan Rishi. Dabur, India’s leading Chyawanprash manufacturer, challenged these advertisements as unfair and disparaging, leading the single judge to intervene in July 2025 by directing Patanjali to delete both the reference to “40 herbs” and the disparaging remark questioning the authenticity of other manufacturers. Dissatisfied, Patanjali preferred an appeal, setting the stage for an important debate on the extent of puffery permissible under Indian advertising law, the line between healthy competition and disparagement, and the rights of businesses to protect their brand image against comparative claims by competitors.

Arguments:

In the appeal, Patanjali’s counsel submitted that the company was willing to remove references to “Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs” but should be permitted to retain the line “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?” which it argued constituted permissible puffery rather than actionable disparagement. It was further clarified that Patanjali would not press its challenge against deletion of the line “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?” and would abide by the single judge’s order in this respect. The thrust of Patanjali’s argument was that in modern advertising, it is universally accepted that a manufacturer may extol the virtues of its own product and even describe competitors’ products as “ordinary” or “not as good” provided it does not directly disparage them or make false factual assertions. Counsel submitted that Dabur’s claim that it markets its Chyawanprash as “made with 40 herbs” meant that the impugned line specifically targeted Dabur, but since Patanjali had agreed to drop the “40 herbs” phrase, the surviving expression “ordinary Chyawanprash” should be treated as fair competitive speech. According to Patanjali, such advertising constitutes puffery, which is legally permissible, and should not be equated with disparagement, especially in the context of a widely consumed wellness product like Chyawanprash which is not a prescription drug.

On the other hand, Dabur’s counsel argued that any reference to its product as “ordinary” was inherently disparaging, particularly because Dabur complies with statutory requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in manufacturing its Chyawanprash. Counsel stressed that compliance with the law should preclude a product from being portrayed as ordinary in the marketplace. Dabur contended that Patanjali’s statements implied not only that Dabur’s Chyawanprash lacked authenticity but also that it was inferior, which had the effect of misleading consumers and diluting Dabur’s brand value. Dabur maintained that the single judge had rightly restrained Patanjali because the TV commercial assumed greater significance by being delivered through Baba Ramdev, a person perceived as an authority in Ayurveda and Yoga, thus carrying an impression of credibility that could unfairly influence consumer choices. It was emphasized that while puffery is permissible, directly portraying a competitor’s product as non-authentic and inferior crosses into the realm of disparagement. Dabur’s counsel thus pressed that the injunction against Patanjali’s advertisement should be maintained in full.

Judgement:

The division bench, after considering both sides, upheld the single judge’s injunction against the use of the statement questioning whether those without Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare authentic Chyawanprash, holding that such language was disparaging and could not be permitted. Regarding the line “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs,” the bench concurred with the single judge that the reference to “40 herbs” directly targeted Dabur, which advertises its product with that precise claim, thereby making the remark impermissible. However, the bench clarified that Patanjali could retain the statement “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?” without the “40 herbs” portion, as that constituted mere puffery. The judges orally observed that while calling a competitor’s product “ordinary” may not amount to disparagement in the context of Chyawanprash, which is a widely used wellness supplement rather than a prescription medicine, attaching specific markers like “40 herbs” converted the statement into a direct attack. The court also highlighted the evolving law of advertising, noting that businesses are allowed to boast that their product is superior and others less good, provided they do not cross into disparagement. The bench further emphasized that in matters like health supplements, the bar for disparagement may be lower than for critical life-saving drugs, where calling a product “ordinary” could have grave implications. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with directions binding Patanjali to its undertakings: removal of the “40 herbs” reference, deletion of the Ayurvedic knowledge remark, and retention of only the general “ordinary Chyawanprash” statement.

This judgment is significant because it balances the freedom of commercial speech with the need to protect businesses from disparagement. It reinforces that while puffery is permissible, comparative advertising cannot mislead or directly disparage a rival’s product. By upholding restrictions on specific disparaging statements while allowing general puffery, the Delhi High Court has signaled that advertising law in India is moving towards greater recognition of competitive claims, provided they remain within the bounds of fair play.