Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict on Dabur's Plea Against Patanjali's 'Dhoka' Chyawanprash Advertisement

The Delhi High Court has reserved its judgment on a plea filed by Dabur India Limited against Patanjali Ayurveda Limited concerning a television advertisement for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. Dabur sought an interim injunction to halt an advertisement where Baba Ramdev stated that 'most people are being duped in the name of Chyawanprash,' referring to other brands as 'Dhoka' (fraud or deception) and promoting Patanjali's product as the only 'original' one.

Dabur argued that this advertisement constitutes defamation, disparagement, and unfair competition, deliberately maligning its flagship product, which has historically held a significant market share. The company contends that such messaging erodes consumer trust in the entire chyawanprash category and Ayurvedic supplements.

During the hearing, Justice Tejas Karia questioned Patanjali's use of the term 'dhoka,' stating it is a derogatory word. The court suggested that Patanjali could use terms like 'inferior' to compare its product but cannot label others as fraudulent. Patanjali's defense, presented by Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, argued that the advertisement employed puffery and hyperbole, which are legally permissible forms of advertising praise. They asserted that the ad aimed to convey that other products are merely inferior and that consumers should choose Patanjali, without directly identifying Dabur.

Impact This case could set a precedent for advertising standards in the highly competitive FMCG sector, particularly for Ayurvedic products. A ruling against Patanjali might lead to stricter scrutiny of comparative advertising and a potential financial impact on the company if an injunction is granted or damages are awarded. Conversely, if Patanjali prevails, it could embolden similar advertising tactics. The outcome will significantly influence brand perception and consumer trust in the chyawanprash market. Impact rating: 7/10.

Difficult terms * **Interim injunction**: A temporary court order that restricts a party from taking a specific action until a final court decision is made. * **Defamation**: Publishing a false statement that is damaging to a person's or entity's reputation. * **Disparagement**: The act of speaking about something in a way that shows you do not have a good opinion of it, often to damage its reputation. * **Unfair competition**: Business practices that are misleading or deceptive, giving one company an unfair advantage over others. * **Puffery**: Exaggerated, subjective claims made in advertising that are not considered factual statements and are generally permissible. * **Hyperbole**: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally, often used for emphasis.