Patanjali has been sued by Dabur over the advertisement published last month; the Court reserved its verdict on the interim injunction application.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on Dabur’s plea for an interim injunction against Patanjali Ayurveda’s new advertisement, which had allegedly termed all other chyawanprash brands “dhoka” (fraud or deception) [Dabur India Limited v Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr].
During the hearing today, Justice Tejas Karia questioned Patanjali about how they can refer to chyawanprash prepared by other companies as “dhoka”.
He remarked that while Patanjali can claim to be the best, it cannot say that others are fraud.
“Use the word inferior, what’s the problem? This is not the representation [from the advertisement]. You are saying everyone is dhoka, and I am genuine. How can you call all other chyawanprash dhoka? You can say inferior, but you can’t call them fraud… Is there no other word available in the dictionary which can be used other than dhoka,” the Court asked.
The Court said that dhoka is a negative word.
“Dhoka is a negative word, derogatory. You are saying they are fraud and people are eating fraud,” the Bench remarked.
Dabur India has sued Patanjali, accusing them of defamation, disparagement and unfair competition over a recent television commercial for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash.
According to the plaint, the ad features Baba Ramdev warning consumers that “most people are being duped in the name of Chyawanprash,” calling other brands “Dhoka” (fraud or deception). The ad promotes Patanjali’s product as the only “original” Chyawanprash offering the “true power of Ayurveda.”
Dabur has alleged that the commercial deliberately maligns its own flagship product, Dabur Chyawanprash, which has dominated the market since 1949 with over 61% market share, and misleads consumers into distrusting all other Chyawanprash makers.
The plaint states that such messaging constitutes “generic disparagement” of the entire Chyawanprash category, eroding consumer faith in Ayurveda-based health supplements.
The company further accuses Patanjali of making false claims that its Chyawanprash contains “51 Ayurvedic herbs and saffron,” despite a 2014 government advisory deeming the same claim misleading.
Further, it contends that the use of “Special” as a prefix to a classical Ayurvedic medicine violates Rule 157(1-B) of the Drugs Rules, which prohibits deceptive labelling of Ayurvedic formulations.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Dabur and stated that chyawanprash is a class of goods, and by referring to all other chyawanprash as dhoka, Patanjali was disparaging all of them.
“To call somebody dhoka is, per se, ex facie, disparaging. They may say ‘I don’t identify you’, but they paint everybody with the same brush… Coming from a self-proclaimed yoga guru, it is far more serious because people identify with a yoga guru with some sense of truthfulness,” Sethi said.
He added that Dabur is preparing its Chyawanprash as per the scriptures prescribed by the statute and if a product does that it cannot be called a dhoka.
“It is all being done to create panic. I have 100-year-old company. I have a 61% share. There have been 9 crore views [of the advertisement] in a matter of 5 days. This is how sensitive the people are,” he said.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Patanjali to defend the commercial. He stated that the Patanjali advertisement is a puffery and hyperbole, which is permissible under the law.
“We have to see the entire meaning that the advertisement is conveying. Right or wrong, it is hyperbole. I am saying all others are ineffective. I am trying to convey that ‘forget about other chyawanprash, consume only mine’. I am allowed to say that I am the best. I am saying all others are inferior in comparison to mine,” he said.
He added that Dabur was being hypersensitive.
“There is no reference to the plaintiff. Why is he so hypersensitive? Just because he is the market leader?” he asked.
Further, Nayar stated that Dabur had filed a suit against Patanjali’s previous advertisement as well and failed to get an injunction against calling them “inferior”.
