‘Clear case of disparagement’: Delhi HC directs Patanjali to remove lines against Dabur chyawanprash in its print, TV ads

The court held that that Patanjali’s print ads “are an instance of specific disparagement” of Dabur’s product, while its TV commercial (TVC) “is an instance of generic disparagement with respect to the entire class of chyawanprash in the market.”

Directing that the parts in the ads stating “Jinko ayurved or vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original chyawanprash kaise bana payenge (How can those without knowledge of ayurveda or vedas make original chyawanprash according to the tradition of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri and Chyawanrishi)”, “Toh ordinary chyawanprash kyu’ and “Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” be deleted, Justice Mini Pushkarna held that “a clear case of disparagement is made out.”

“…what seems to fall from the bare reading and audio-visual viewing of the impugned TVC is that other existing chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition. This Court further notes that the impugned TVC is narrated by Mr Ramdev, who also appears in the TVC in person,” the court stated.

Mr Ramdev is a known yoga guru in India and is recognised as someone having knowledge of the Vedas. Thus, the narrative of the impugned TVC assumes more importance coming from the mouth of a person popularly known to be an expert in the field…,” it added.

The judge continued, “The said statement in the impugned TVC, in addition to being false, is also misleading for the reason that the impression created by the defendants, with Mr Ramdev as the brand ambassador, is that only the defendants have the knowledge of Ayurveda and Vedas, and can make original Chyawanprash, as per the traditions. Whereas fact of the matter is that Chyawanprash is an ayurvedic medicine as defined under Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act…”

Reasoning that while it may be open for Patanjali to claim that its chyawanprash is the best, Justice Pushkarna noted, “It is not open for them to state that other manufacturers of Chyawanprash lack the necessary knowledge and technical know-how to prepare the same as per ayurvedic texts as the same is firstly, untrue and secondly, misleading to the public at large.”

Holding that the use of “ordinary” in the Patanjali ads in reference to other chyawanprash is “clearly negative”, the court, also observed in respect of the TVCs, “to an average person who watches the impugned TVC, where Mr Ramdev, an acknowledged yoga and vedic expert, declares that only the defendants possess the knowledge of ayurvedic texts to prepare original Chyawanprash, they would obviously be influenced by such statements and believe them to be true, and discard other Chyawanprash.”

“While assessing the overall impact of the impugned TVC on the audience, other factors, such as the person endorsing the advertiser’s product, etc, also need to be taken into account. Therefore, the impugned TVC, in its manner of presentation as well as intent, seeks to disparage the entire class of Chyawanprash,” it added.