Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 9224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Dabur India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Patanjali Ayurved Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1182/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Sethi, R. Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, Meghna Kumar, Krisna Gambhir
For the Respondents: Rajiv Nayar, Jayant Mehta, Rahul Sahay, Rishabh Pant, Neha Gupta, Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Osheen Verna, Pratham Arora
While commercial speech is protected, it does not permit generic disparagement of an entire class of competitors. Advertisements that use false or misleading representations to characterize rival products as deceptive, thereby belittling them, exceed permissible puffery and are subject to judicial injunction.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from pre-institution mediation - Granted where urgent interim relief is sought. (Para 4)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary Injunction - Principles for grant of injunction against disparagement - Generic disparagement of a class of goods is impermissible even if the competitor is not explicitly named - Disparagement as an act of belittling goods with misleading remarks constitutes a valid ground for restraint. (Paras 28, 31, 32)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of commercial speech - Not absolute - Does not extend to the dissemination of falsehoods or conduct which is misleading, unfair, or disparaging of a class of competitors. (Paras 30, 33)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a prominent manufacturer in a specific health supplement category, sought a permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The grievance pertained to an advertisement where the defendants labeled all competing products in the category as deceptive, fraudulent, and synonymous with betrayal/cheating, thereby projecting their own product as the only genuine alternative. The plaintiff alleged this amounted to generic disparagement, adversely affecting their market share, despite no direct naming of their specific product.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while an advertiser possesses the liberty to highlight the virtues of their own product and engage in puffery, they cannot cross the line into disparaging an entire class of goods. The usage of terminology implying that competitors' products are inherently fraudulent is false and misleading. The court observed that such generic disparagement is actionable, particularly when it targets the core identity of a category.
Issues: Whether an advertisement that disparages an entire class of products without naming a specific competitor is actionable, and whether such expression is protected under the fundamental right to commercial speech.
Ratio Decidendi: Commercial speech is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). An advertisement that includes falsehoods or engages in generic disparagement by terming competing products as deceptive exceeds the boundaries of permissible puffery. The test of disparagement must be viewed from the perspective of an ordinary, reasonable consumer of average intelligence, and if the overall message is misleading or unfairly portrays a class of products as defective or fraudulent, the court is empowered to grant injunctive relief.
Result: Application for interim injunction allowed; defendants restrained from airing the impugned advertisement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and interim administrative directions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 2. factual background concerning parties and impugned advertisement. (Para 23) |
| 3. defendants' arguments: right to free commercial speech and puffery. (Para 26) |
| 4. court’s analysis on generic disparagement and permissible limits. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. final order granting ad-interim injunction. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 27469/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)
3. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”).
4. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 27472/2025 (Extension of time to file Court Fees)
6. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking exemption from payment of Court Fees at the time of the filing of the Suit.
7. Considering the submissions made in the present Application, time of two weeks is granted to deposit the Court Fees.
8. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 27473/2025 (seeking leave to file certain documents on a pen drive)
9. This Application has been filed by Plaintiff seeking permission to place on record a pen drive containing the Impugned Advertisement in the Suit dated 16.10.2025 as well as the earlier advertisement issued by the Defendants dated 11.12.2024.
10. In facts and circumstances as stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The pen drive be taken on record.
11. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
CS (COMM) 1182/2025
12. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
13. Issue Summons. The learned Counsel for the Defendants accepts Summons.
14. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
15. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
16. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
17. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
18. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 23.12.2025 for completion of service and pleadings.
I.A. 27471/2025 (Additional Documents)
19. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits under the CC Act, seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
20. The Plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
21. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 27468/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)
22. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for the Defendants accepts Notice.
23. The
