Shahin Akhtar
On 12th September 2025, Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd. have approached the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Appellate Division against an interim order that restricted their promotional campaign for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The order, passed in July by Justice Mini Pushkarna, came after Dabur alleged that Patanjali’s advertisements disparaged rival Chyawanprash products, including Dabur’s own, which dominates the market.
Justice Pushkarna had directed Patanjali to remove phrases such as “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from print ads and to edit portions of its television commercials that suggested only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare authentic Chyawanprash. While the ads were permitted to run, these modifications were made mandatory.
In its appeal, Patanjali has argued that the order is inconsistent with the principles governing commercial speech. The company maintains that its advertisements did not single out Dabur but merely emphasised the strengths of Patanjali’s own product. It contends that the use of the word “ordinary” is neutral and not disparaging, pointing to previous rulings where courts treated such terms as non-pejorative.
Patanjali also highlighted that its “Special Chyawanprash” is based on the Ayurved Sar Sangrah, a classical Ayurvedic text listed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Approval for this formulation was granted by the Uttarakhand licensing authority in 2022, and other companies, such as Baidyanath, also market “special” variants.
The company further argued that exaggeration and puffery are an accepted part of advertising and protected under the right to free speech. Unless a competitor’s product is directly named and maligned, it said, such claims cannot be treated as disparagement. It also accused Dabur of similar tactics, pointing to its own campaigns claiming “2x/3x immunity,” which are not backed by Ayurvedic texts.
Another key ground raised in the appeal is that the interim order granted Dabur effective relief before trial, despite unresolved issues such as whether Chyawanprash should contain 40 or 51 herbs.
Dabur, however, insists that Patanjali’s campaign misleads consumers by calling rival products “ordinary” and questioning their authenticity, which, it argues, damages public trust in Ayurvedic formulations.
Case Name: Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. Vs. Dabur India Ltd.
Case No.: FAO(OS)(COMM)/140/2025
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here