Delhi HC Curbs Patanjali Ad, Citing Disparagement Over Puffery in Chyawanprash Dispute

New Delhi – In a significant ruling on the boundaries of comparative advertising, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Patanjali Ayurved Limited from broadcasting an advertisement that labels competing Chyawanprash products as "Dhoka" (deception). The order, passed by Justice Tejas Karia, came in response to a suit filed by market leader Dabur India Limited, which alleged that Patanjali's campaign constituted commercial disparagement of the entire Chyawanprash product category.

The decision underscores the judiciary's role in policing the fine line between permissible "puffery" and unlawful denigration, particularly when advertisements engage in generic attacks on a whole class of products. The Court found that Dabur had established a prima facie case, asserting that such a campaign could cause irreparable harm to its brand, which commands over 60% of the market share.

The Impugned Advertisement and Core Allegations

The dispute centers on a Patanjali advertisement for its "Special Chyawanprash," prominently featuring its co-founder, Baba Ramdev. Dabur contended that the commercial, which used phrases like "Chalo, dhoka khao!" (“Come, eat deception!”) and urged consumers to “protect themselves from daily deceptions sold in the name of Chyawanprash,” was a malicious and deliberate attempt to defame all other Chyawanprash products.

Represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Dabur argued that the advertisement's message was clear: all competing brands, including its own, were fraudulent, lacked Ayurvedic authenticity, and were deceiving consumers. As the undisputed market leader, Dabur claimed it was disproportionately affected by this generic disparagement, which sought to erode consumer trust in the product category as a whole, only to position Patanjali's offering as the sole genuine alternative.

Patanjali, defended by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, countered that the campaign was a form of permissible "puffery and hyperbole." They argued that the term "Dhoka" was a creative expression not aimed specifically at Dabur and that the advertisement was protected as commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The defense maintained that the ad merely highlighted the superiority of Patanjali's product without naming any competitor.

The Court's Analysis: Puffery vs. Generic Disparagement

In its detailed order, the Delhi High Court meticulously deconstructed the legal principles governing comparative advertising. While acknowledging that advertisers can highlight the superiority of their products, the Court drew a firm line against campaigns that denigrate competitors.

Justice Karia held that Patanjali's advertisement crossed this line. The Court reasoned that the key test is the overall impression an advertisement leaves on an "ordinary reasonable man." In this case, the Court found the message was not one of superiority but of outright deception by all other market players.

"Calling all other Chyawanprash as 'Dhoka' or deception amounts to commercial disparagement," the Court stated, emphasizing that while exaggeration is permitted, advertisers "cannot denigrate the products of others as a class in their entirety."

A crucial factor in the Court's analysis was the stature of the endorser, Baba Ramdev. The judgment noted that his reputation as "a well-known authority on yoga and Vedic practices" lent significant weight to his assertions.

"Therefore, for an average viewer of the Impugned Advertisement featuring Mr. Baba Ramdev... his assertion that only the Defendants’ Product is genuine Chyawanprash is likely to create a strong impression. Such a statement would naturally lead viewers to accept it as true and disregard other brands of Chyawanprash," the Court observed.

This reasoning highlights a growing judicial consideration: the influence of a celebrity or authority figure can amplify an advertisement's potential to mislead, moving it from the realm of puffery to that of actionable disparagement.

Impact on Market Leader and Unfair Competition

The Court explicitly rejected Patanjali's argument that the absence of a direct reference to Dabur absolved it of liability. It affirmed the principle that generic disparagement of an entire product category inevitably harms the market leader the most.

"Even though Patanjali's advertisement does not particularly target Dabur's product, it refers to every other chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’, and Dabur, being the market leader, would be adversely affected by it," the Court ruled.

This finding reinforces a crucial tenet for legal practitioners in advertising law: a seemingly generic negative campaign can be interpreted as a targeted attack on the dominant player in the market, making it vulnerable to legal challenge. The Court deemed such a tactic a form of unfair competition, stating, "From the perspective of the consumer, the message conveyed is that all other Chyawanprash, including Dabur's, are deceptive."

Freedom of Speech and its Constitutional Limits

Patanjali's defense hinged significantly on the protection of commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, the Court delivered a strong reminder that this right is not absolute.

The judgment clarified that constitutional protection does not extend to disseminating falsehoods or denigrating competitors. The Court underscored that commercial speech, like other freedoms, is subject to the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2).

“The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not extend to the dissemination of falsehoods or confer any right to defame, disparage, or denigrate a competitor... Since public interest is paramount, comparative advertising may be regulated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution when it is found to be misleading, unfair, or untruthful.”

This aspect of the ruling is a vital takeaway for legal counsel advising clients on advertising campaigns. It reaffirms that claims must be not only accurate but also free from the potential to mislead. Any campaign that crosses into deceptive or unfair territory loses its constitutional shield and can be lawfully restrained.

The Injunction and Future Proceedings

Finding that Dabur had successfully established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favor, and that it would suffer irreparable injury if the ad continued, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction.

Patanjali has been directed to cease broadcasting, publishing, or disseminating the advertisement across all media platforms, including television, digital, print, and social media. The company was given 72 hours to remove the existing advertisements from platforms like YouTube and Instagram.

The injunction will remain in force until the next hearing, which is scheduled for February 26, 2026. The case, titled Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. (CS(COMM) 1182/2025), is poised to become a key reference point for future disputes involving generic disparagement and the limits of aggressive marketing in India's competitive consumer goods landscape.