Introduction:
In a legal battle that highlights the competitive landscape of the Chyavanprash market, Dabur India Limited, a prominent player in the Ayurvedic product segment, has filed a suit against Patanjali Ayurved, alleging disparagement in its advertisements targeting Dabur’s Chyavanprash product. Summons in the case were issued on December 24, 2024, alongside a notice on Dabur’s application for an interim injunction to halt Patanjali’s advertisements. Dabur claims that despite the court’s earlier orders, Patanjali continued to air advertisements that disparage its product, and a fresh injunction plea has been filed in response to this ongoing advertising campaign. The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, sought Patanjali Ayurved’s response to Dabur’s renewed plea on January 10, 2025, setting the matter for hearing on January 20, 2025.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Dabur’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, argues that Patanjali’s advertisements contain false and misleading claims regarding the number of herbs used in its Chyavanprash. Dabur asserts that Patanjali’s advertisements state that their Chyavanprash is made with more than 51 herbs, while in reality, only 47 herbs are used. Moreover, Dabur accuses Patanjali of using mercury in their product, which it claims makes the product unsafe for children. These allegations form the crux of Dabur’s claim that Patanjali is attempting to discredit its product by calling Dabur’s formulation of 40 herbs “ordinary” in its advertisements, which is seen as a direct disparagement.
Dabur further emphasizes that Patanjali’s advertisements specifically target its product, which is a market leader in the Chyavanprash category with over 60% market share, by labeling it as “ordinary,” thus implying that Patanjali’s product is superior. Sethi highlights the critical nature of the advertisements, stating that Patanjali’s actions are aimed at damaging Dabur’s reputation by misleading the public into thinking its product is inferior.
On the other hand, Patanjali’s Senior Advocate, Jayant Mehta, strongly denied all allegations made by Dabur. Mehta contended that the claims regarding the ingredients and the quality of Patanjali’s Chyavanprash are based on scientifically validated formulas, and all ingredients used are safe for human consumption, as prescribed in the necessary guidelines. He rejected Dabur’s characterization of the advertisements as disparaging, asserting that Patanjali’s marketing strategy is simply meant to promote its own product, which complies with all standards and regulations. He further argued that the second interim injunction application filed by Dabur was unjustified, as there was no merit to the allegations.
Court’s Judgment and Observations:
The Delhi High Court, while issuing notice to Patanjali Ayurved in response to Dabur’s second interim injunction application, has directed the company to file its response by January 20, 2025. The court has observed that the matter requires further clarification and details from both parties regarding the veracity of the claims made in the advertisements. Dabur’s plea for an injunction is based on the contention that Patanjali’s advertisements contain misleading statements that could lead to consumer confusion and harm to Dabur’s brand image. In contrast, Patanjali has denied the allegations and maintained that its marketing is in accordance with applicable regulations.
As the case progresses, the Court will need to determine whether the advertisements by Patanjali constitute an unfair or deceptive business practice and whether an interim injunction is warranted to halt the ongoing advertising campaign. The Court has listed both the original and the new injunction applications for hearing on January 20, 2025.