The Delhi High Court has criticized Patanjali Ayurved for appealing against a previous order that restrained the company from running advertisements that allegedly disparaged Dabur’s Chyawanprash brand. A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla questioned the maintainability of the appeal, calling it a case of “generic disparagement.” The court noted that Patanjali’s advertisements had painted all other chyawanprash manufacturers as incompetent, implying that only Patanjali knew how to make the product correctly.
The bench warned Patanjali that it would impose costs if the appeal was found to be unnecessary, stating that it would not allow “frivolous” appeals. The judges pointed out that Patanjali’s advertisement claiming “why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” was a clear reference to Dabur’s long-standing advertisement claim of using “40+ herbs.” The court observed that the use of the phrase “40 herbs” was an obvious reference to Dabur, and that Patanjali’s statement was a disparagement of not just Dabur’s product, but the entire class of chyawanprash available in the market.
Patanjali’s senior advocate, Jayant Mehta, sought time to confer with his client and the opposite side, and the court adjourned the matter for further hearing on September 23. The appeal arises from a July 3 order by Justice Mini Pushkarna, which directed Patanjali to modify its advertisements for ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’. The single judge had held that a “clear case of disparagement was made out” and directed the deletion of certain lines from the advertisements.
Dabur India had accused Patanjali of denigrating its brand ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’ and misleading consumers by presenting rival products as substandard and “ordinary.” The company argued that Patanjali’s statements disparaged not only its product but the entire class of chyawanprash available in the market. The case will now return to court on September 23 for further consideration. The court’s remarks suggest that it is unlikely to entertain Patanjali’s appeal, and may impose costs on the company if it finds that the appeal is unnecessary.