The Delhi High Court has barred Patanjali Ayurved from airing an advertisement that labeled all other Chyawanprash products as \u201cdhoka\u201d (deception), ruling that it constitutes commercial disparagement. The restriction will remain in place until the next hearing on February 26, 2026. <\/p>\n
The court also directed Patanjali to remove, block, or disable the advertisement across all platforms within 72 hours of receiving the order. This includes national television channels, streaming platforms, digital and print media, as well as all social media accounts, including YouTube and Instagram.<\/p>\n
A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on November 6, 2025, while hearing Dabur India Limited’s plea. Dabur had sought removal of Patanjali’s ad for its Special Chyawanprash, claiming it denigrated the entire category of Chyawanprash manufacturers. <\/p>\n
Dabur argued that the ad, which used phrases such as \u201cChalo, dhoka khao!\u201d and \u201cAdhikansh log Chyawanprash ke naam par dhokha kha rahe hain,\u201d portrayed most other Chyawanprash products as fake or inferior, undermining consumer trust and harming Dabur, the market leader.<\/p>\n
Patanjali contended that the advertisement merely highlighted its product and that the term \u201cdhoka\u201d was used as creative expression or puffery, emphasizing that commercial advertising is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as free speech.<\/p>\n
The court, however, found that the advertisement went beyond permissible puffery and that calling all other Chyawanprash products deceptive amounted to disparagement. It observed that while advertisers are free to praise their own products, they cannot denigrate an entire class of competing products, especially when such statements could mislead consumers<\/p>\n
\u201cThe intent and overall effect of the Impugned Advertisement is to negatively portray other Chyawanprash in the market, including, the Plaintiff’s Product and to denigrate the entire category as deception. The test of an advertisement constituting disparagement has to be seen from the point of view of an ordinary reasonable man, i.e., what would be the impact \/ impression of the advertisement on said reasonable and ordinary person of average intelligence.\u201d, It said. <\/p>\n
It further noted that \u201ccalling all other Chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’ or deception amounts to commercial disparagement\u201d and that the advertisement was likely to cause harm to Dabur, which is the market leader in the segment. <\/p>\n
The court clarified that while comparative advertising is allowed, it must not be \u201cfalse, misleading, unfair or deceptive,\u201d adding,<\/p>\n
\u201cCreative liberty and puffery are protected as free speech, but disparagement of a competitor’s product cannot be allowed. The parties are free to promote their products terming them as better than any other alternative available in the market, but the moment that they go beyond permissible creative liberty and make statements which are false and misleading and of disparaging nature, they can be restrained.\u201d<\/p>\n
Finding that Dabur had made out a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction, the court directed Patanjali to take down or disable the advertisement within 72 hours across television, digital, and social media platforms and restrained it from issuing any similar advertisement referring to Chyawanprash as \u201cdhoka\u201d or implying it lacks medical value.<\/p>\n
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.<\/p>\n
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1182\/2025<\/p>\n
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi along with Advocates R Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, Meghna Kumar and Krisna Gambhir.<\/p>\n
For Defendants: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar with Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta with Advocates Rahul Sahay, Rishabh Pant, Neha Gupta, Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Osheen Verna and Pratham Arora<\/p>\n