Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.

The Delhi High Court has, in a recent case, restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited (“Patanjali”) from broadcasting a disparaging advertisement in a suit filed by Dabur India Limited (“Dabur”).

Recently, Dabur came across an advertisement by Patanjali where it portrayed all Chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception) and implied that only Patanjali’s own Patanjali Special Chyawanprash represented the “true power of ayurveda”.

Dabur submitted that the advertisement labelling all other Chyawanprash brands as fake and deceitful damages the reputation of Dabur’s Chyawanprash product and instils a negative impression in the minds of consumers about the all other Chyawanprash products. On the other hand, Patanjali challenged Dabur’s locus by asserting that they have not specifically targeted Dabur’s product and that owning a majority market share alone does not make Dabur an aggrieved party to file the present suit. Patanjali also maintained that its advertisement merely constitutes as puffery, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and only highlights the superior qualities of its product without naming any competitor.

The court observed that, while comparative advertising is permissible, they cannot denigrate the quality and character of competing products even as a class. It was held that an advertiser can highlight that a particular aspect or quality of its product is superior to that of a rival, provided that the overall message of the advertisement is not misleading. The court further opined that, in the present advertisement, while Dabur’s product was not directly referred, generic disparagement of all the competing products by Patanjali is likely to cause harm to Dabur. Therefore, calling all Chyawanprash as “dhoka” crossed the line between permissible puffery and unlawful disparagement. The court reiterated that comparative advertising ceases to be protected speech when it becomes false, misleading or denigratory.

Recognising Dabur’s prima facie case, the court granted an interim injunction directing Patanjali to take down the impugned advertisement and restrained it from referring to Chyawanprash as “dhoka” or suggesting that other brands lack medicinal value.

Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. [CS(COMM) 1182/2025] Decided on 06 November 2025 Read the judgement copy here.