Dabur objects to Patanjali’s latest ad referring to other chyawanprash as ‘dhokha’; Delhi HC to pass orders

Justice Tejas Karia, after hearing at length both sides on Thursday, reserved orders on the immediate relief being sought by Dabur – an interim injunction against the ads.

While Justice Karia orally inquired from Dabur how they are affected by the terming of “dhokha”, given that Patanjali is not naming any specific brand in its ad, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Dabur, argued, “They’re generically identifying all chyawanprash as ‘dhokha’.”

Sethi further argued that with Dabur being a market leader in the chyawanprash sector, holding up to 60 per cent of the market share, “…please note, ‘dhokha khao’, followed by ‘adhikansh’, that is ‘most people’ are having dhokha in the name of chyawanprash… ex facie this is denigration… Chyawanprash, as a class of goods, is being referred to as deceptive… Particularly because I’m a market leader (that I am affected by such imputations by Patanjali).”

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Patanjali, argued that the ad may qualify as “puffery”, which is allowed.

“I’m saying all other chyawanprash is inferior to mine, which I’m allowed to say… Right or wrong, it is a hyperbole… I’m trying to say all others are inferior to mine,” submitted Nayar.

Justice Karia, orally addressing Nayar, remarked, “How you say it is also important… You need to use some other word… You’re not comparing… you’re disparaging… Where’s the boundary? This is a borderline case where you’re crossing the boundary… How is this a comparison by calling somebody else (dhoka)?”

This is the second time that Dabur is seeking the Delhi HC’s intervention while accusing Patanjali of making disparaging ads against the FMCG giant. Dabur India Limited, in a suit earlier this year before the Delhi HC, had accused Patanjali Ayurved Ltd of disparagement and denigration of ‘Dabur Chyawanprash’, and of the entire class of chyawanprash in general, in ads of ‘Patanjali Special Chyawanprash’. Dabur also accused Patanjali of making “false and misleading statements” in the ads, in disparaging comparison with “Dabur Chyawanprash‟ and other existing chyawanprash in the market. Dabur had sought an interim injunction against Patanjali’s Hindi and English TV and print ads.

In July, the Delhi HC had ruled that “a clear case of disparagement is made out” in Patanjali’s ads for its chyawanprash, impacting Dabur, and had directed Patanjali to delete parts of its print and TV ads in this regard, reasoning that the disparaging narrative of the ads “assumes more importance” as renowned “yoga guru Mr Ramdev” appears in the ads. The court had directed that parts in the ads be deleted, including the one stating, “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” Dabur advertises its chyawanprash as containing ‘40+’ ayurvedic herbs.

In September, a division bench of the Delhi HC, acting on an appeal by Patanjali against the July order, had broadly upheld the single judge’s order with a minor tweak, allowing Patanjali to use the phrase “why use ordinary chyawanprash”.