The Court said that Patanjali may use “why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash” in its ads, but cannot use “with 40 herbs”, as the latter phrase directly targeted its rival, Dabur’s product.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday modified an interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurved over the use of the phrase “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” in its advertisements by allowing it to continue using only the first part of the phrase [Patanjali Ayurved Vs Dabur Limited].
A Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla has permitted Patanjali to use the part of the phrase referring to “ordinary Chyawanprash” in its advertisements, but restrained the company from making any references that could directly target rival Dabur’s 40-herb formulation.
The Court observed that comparative puffery was permissible in advertising.
However, Patanjali’s specific reference to “40 herbs” directly identified Dabur’s product and therefore could not be allowed.
“If the reference to 40 herbs is removed, what remains is only a statement saying ‘why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?’ At the highest, that is puffery,” the Court noted.
The judges also clarified that not every use of the word “ordinary” in comparative advertising amounts to disparagement.
“Today, comparative advertising has travelled far beyond what it may have been 30 years ago. To say ‘I am the best and others are not as good’ is permissible as puffery,” the Bench remarked.
It added that enlightened consumers are not likely to abandon Dabur’s product merely because of Patanjali’s use of the word “ordinary.”
Following these observations, the Court closed an appeal filed by Patanjali in the matter. It also recorded Dabur’s agreement to the proposal that the earlier injunction order against Patanjali would be confined to restraining Patanjali from linking its “ordinary” claim with Dabur’s “40-herb” products.
Accordingly, Patanjali is now allowed to continue using the expression “ordinary Chyawanprash”, but without connecting it to any reference that would suggest a direct comparison with Dabur’s products.
The Court has left the other issues open to be decided by the trial court.
In July 2025, a single judge, Justice Mini Pushkarna had found that parts of Patanjali’s advertising campaign for its “Special Chyawanprash” went beyond permissible puffery and crossed into disparagement of rival products.
Dabur, which controls over 60% of the Chyawanprash market, alleged that Patanjali’s campaign misrepresented Ayurvedic formulations and cast Dabur’s product as “ordinary” and lacking fidelity to tradition.
Justice Pushkarna directed Patanjali to delete such claims—including the line “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” and scenes in its television commercials suggesting that only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare “original Chyawanprash.” The Court clarified that the advertisements could continue once these edits were made.
Patanjali challenged this ruling before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, arguing that the single judge order curtailed commercial speech and wrongly restricted the use of exaggeration in advertising, a practice protected under the doctrine of puffery.
It contended that the word “ordinary” was neutral and not a direct reference to Dabur, that its “special” formulation of Chyawanprash had regulatory approval, and that the interim order effectively prejudged issues relating to the number of herbs—40 or 51—required in the formulation.
When the matter came up before a Division Bench, the Court noted that the single judge’s order did not strike down the entire advertisement but only required minor modifications. The Bench had earlier warned Patanjali that pursuing the appeal could attract costs, and advised it to consider withdrawing the challenge.
