Calcutta High Court Strengthens Injunction Against Disparaging Chyawanprash Ads in Dabur vs. Baidyanath Dispute

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justice DebangsU Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, modified a single judge's order on December 11, 2025, granting a full interim injunction against certain advertisements by Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (Baidyanath) that were found disparaging to Dabur India Limited's Chyawanprash product. The decision arose from cross-appeals (APO/27/2022 by Dabur and APO/39/2022 by Baidyanath) stemming from a suit for injunction filed by Dabur alleging disparagement in Baidyanath's promotional materials. The court dismissed Baidyanath's appeal due to its non-participation and upheld Dabur's contention that partial edits to the ads did not eliminate their disparaging nature.

Case Background

Dabur India Limited and Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. are prominent manufacturers of Chyawanprash, an Ayurvedic health supplement governed by statutory regulations on ingredients and production. The dispute originated from Dabur's suit (CS/232/2021) seeking an injunction against Baidyanath for allegedly disparaging Dabur's product through comparative advertisements that implied superiority and contained false statements. Key contentious materials were Annexures J and K in Dabur's injunction application, which highlighted Baidyanath's claims about its product's composition. A single judge, in an order dated February 8, 2022, granted injunctions on several ads but allowed Annexures J and K to continue if the phrase "42 ingredients" was removed, finding an element of disparagement but deeming the edit sufficient. This led to cross-appeals: Dabur challenged the partial relief (APO/27/2022), while Baidyanath contested the broader injunctions (APO/39/2022). The appeals were taken up for analogous hearing, with the Division Bench delivering judgment on December 11, 2025, after rejecting Baidyanath's last-minute adjournment request.

Arguments Presented

Dabur, as appellant in APO/27/2022, argued that Baidyanath's advertisements in Annexures J and K were inherently disparaging and contained false statements about ingredient composition, violating statutory guidelines for Chyawanprash production. Represented by senior advocates Sudipta Sarkar, Debnath Ghosh, Sudhakar Prasad, and Nilankan Banerjee, Dabur contended that the single judge acknowledged disparagement in these annexures but erred in permitting their continuation post-removal of "42 ingredients." They emphasized that Dabur adheres to Ayurvedic texts and statutory requirements, making the ads misleading regardless of the edit, as the overall implication of superiority persisted and harmed Dabur's reputation.

Baidyanath, appellant in APO/39/2022 and represented initially by Amrita Panja Moulick, sought to challenge the single judge's broader injunctions against other materials. However, Baidyanath failed to substantively argue its case, requesting adjournments due to the absence of their senior counsel. No specific contentions on Annexures J and K were advanced during the hearing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for non-prosecution. Earlier, Baidyanath had implied that their ads were factual promotions compliant with regulations, but this was not elaborated in the appellate proceedings.

Legal Analysis

The Division Bench focused on the principles of disparagement in comparative advertising, particularly in regulated industries like Ayurvedic products under statutory guidelines. The court noted that Chyawanprash manufacture is governed by law, with Dabur prima facie complying with these requirements. While no specific precedents were cited in the judgment, the reasoning aligned with established trademark and unfair competition law, where advertisements implying inferiority of a competitor's product through false or misleading claims warrant injunctions. The single judge's finding of disparagement in Annexures J and K was upheld, but the court distinguished partial edits from substantive relief, ruling that removing "42 ingredients" did not neutralize the ads' overall disparaging effect. This underscores that disparagement persists if the core message undermines a competitor's statutory-compliant product, emphasizing holistic assessment over superficial changes in regulated promotional content.

Key Observations

• "Prima facie, it appears that Dabur is following the statutory requirement while producing the Chyawanprash. Moreover, learned Single Judge found Annexures J and K to be disparaging." (Para 16)
• "Removal of the two words '42 ingredients' will not render Annexures J and K which are otherwise disparaging to be not disparaging." (Para 16)
• "Once the material is held to be disparaging the removal of the two words would not alter the situation. Annexures ‘J’ and ‘K’ would continue to remain disparaging with or without those two words." (Para 16)
• "In view of the conduct of Baidyanath as noted above, appeal of Baidyanath directed against impugned judgment and order being APO/39/2022 is dismissed." (Para 14)

Court's Decision

The Division Bench dismissed Baidyanath's appeal (APO/39/2022) for non-participation and modified the single judge's order by granting a full interim injunction against Annexures J and K, without the conditional allowance for editing. Specifically, paragraphs 21, 22, and 26 of the impugned order were amended to prohibit these advertisements entirely (Para 17). This decision reinforces protections against disparagement in competitive advertising, particularly for statutorily regulated products, ensuring that partial modifications do not suffice if the core disparagement remains. Practically, it bars Baidyanath from using these materials, potentially deterring similar misleading claims in the Ayurvedic sector. For future cases, it highlights the need for comprehensive injunctions in disparagement suits, impacting how competitors promote products without undermining rivals' compliance with law.