‘Clear case of disparagement': Delhi HC directs Patanjali to remove lines against Dabur chyawanprash in its print, TV ads
In a suit before the Delhi High Court, Dabur India Limited 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.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in criminal defamation case by Delhi L-G Saxena
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) confirmed a Delhi High Court decision upholding the conviction of Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant General of Delhi, in 2001. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh however set aside an order directing Ms. Patkar, represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh and advocate Abhimanue Shreshta, to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation. The apex court also modified a probation order imposed on her and directed her to furnish bonds in order to exempt her from prison sentence. The Bench removed conditions of supervision of Ms. Patkar. 'Once the appellate court (High Court) applied the parameters of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code to grant probation, it could not have applied provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, much less the requirement for supervision by the Probation Officer under Section 4 (3) or the grant of compensation. The only permissible condition under Section 360 was to release the petitioner (Patkar), with or without surety, and no other condition was legally tenable,' Mr. Parikh argued. Ms. Patkar was alleged to have emailed a press note on November 24, 2000 allegedly to Dilip Gohil, a correspondent. The latter had published an article in Gujarati which Mr. Saxena claimed to be defamatory to him. Mr. Parikh argued for setting aside the conviction, noting that the High Court had upheld the conviction despite disbelieving two crucial witnesses. The email, projected as key proof, was not certified as admissible as evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. However, the apex court stood firm by its decision to not intervene in the conviction. The High Court had upheld the conviction of Ms. Patkar on July 29. Mr. Saxena had been heading the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties at the time of the defamation complaint.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Court confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to overturn the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a criminal defamation case filed by Vinai Kumar Saxena, the current Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, dating back to 2001, reported Live Law. However, a bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh set aside the ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on her. The trial court had exempted Patkar from jail by granting probation. The Supreme Court modified this probation order by removing the requirement for her periodic court appearances, allowing her instead to furnish bonds. Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh, representing Patkar, argued that the appellate court had disbelieved two key witnesses and that the crucial email evidence was inadmissible as it was not certified under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Despite these submissions, the bench was reluctant to interfere with the conviction but agreed to quash the penalty. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Saxena, contended that at least a nominal penalty should be imposed on Patkar. On July 29, the Delhi High Court had upheld Patkar's conviction in the defamation case filed by Saxena, who was then head of the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Loved Udaipur Files? Watch other 5 gripping crime thrillers on OTT
Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder has faced a stay on release due to the appeal filed by Mohammad Javed, one of the accused in the murder case. However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and on August 8, 2025, the film was finally released in theaters, welcoming good responses from the audience and critics. Starring Vijay Raaz, the film depicts the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal. Vijay Raaz in Udaipur Files If you love Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder, here are 5 other crime thrillers you can enjoy on OTTplay Premium! 5 crime thrillers to stream on OTTplay Premium Raman Raghav 2.0 is a psychological crime thriller film. It is based on the life of the serial killer Raman Raghav from the 1960s. The film centers on a fictional character, Ramanna, a serial killer who takes historical figures as role models, and a police officer, Raghavan, who is also battling his own inner demons. The film stars Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Vicky Kaushal, and Sobhita Dhulipala in the lead roles. Undekhi is a crime thriller web series that revolves around a high-profile wedding in Manali that takes a dark turn after a dancer is murdered. This series deals with themes of power, corruption, and the lengths to which an influential family will go to cover up a crime. Undekhi stars Harsh Chhaya, Dibyendu Bhattacharya, Surya Sharma, and others. The Kashmir Files is a crime drama film depicting the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990. In the film, Krishna Pandit, a student at JNU, is initially influenced by a professor who denies emigrating, but later discovers the truth about his family's tragic past. The film stars Mithun Chakraborty, Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, and Pallavi Joshi. Rekhachithram is a Malayalam crime mystery thriller. The movie focuses on a police officer, who investigates a decades-old murder case. In the film, Asif Ali plays CI Vivek Gopinath. He is assigned to solve the mystery of a young woman, Rekha, who disappeared during the filming of Kathodu Kathoram in 1985. The film also stars Anaswara Rajan. In "Silence... Can You Hear It?, we see a young woman gets murder and the subsequent investigation by ACP Avinash Verma begins. The film stars Manoj Bajpayee as ACP Verma, Prachi Desai, and Arjun Mathur. The story revolves around a group of trekkers who discover a body on a mountain, which is said to be that of Pooja Chaudhari, the daughter of a retired judge.
