Patanjali Challenges HC Curb on Ads Aimed at Dabur Chyawanprash

Patanjali Ayurved on September 19, 2025 moved the Delhi High Court against an earlier order that restricted it from running advertisements disparaging Dabur Chyawanprash. The matter came up before a division bench, which expressed concern over potentially misleading claims in Patanjali’s promotions.

Patanjali Challenges Interim Order

The division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla stated that Patanjali’s statements appeared to be direct references to Dabur. The bench pointed out that the phrase “Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” was a clear allusion to Dabur’s product, which is widely advertised for containing 40 herbs. The court noted that such remarks classify as generic disparagement and questioned the need to interfere with the earlier interim injunction.

Court’s Warning Against Frivolous Appeals

The bench warned Patanjali that if the case proved to be a luxury litigation or a useless appeal, costs would be imposed. The judges remarked that the company had no irreparable loss from the order and criticised unnecessary appeals, stating that abundant financial resources should not be misused for repeated challenges. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on September 23, 2025.

Background of the Dispute

On July 3, a single judge had restrained Patanjali from airing the contentious advertisements. Dabur’s petition alleged that Patanjali Special Chyawanprash directly targeted its flagship brand, calling rival products “ordinary” and questioning others’ knowledge of Ayurvedic traditions, thereby misleading consumers. The injunction required Patanjali to remove such claims from both TV and print ads narrated by Ramdev, whose authority as a yoga and Vedic expert could influence public perception.

Read More: ITC Foods Targets Quick Commerce with New Fresh Packaged Products!

Dabur’s Claims and Allegations

Dabur argued that the advertisements made false and disparaging comparisons by suggesting that no other manufacturer had the knowledge to prepare authentic chyawanprash. It also claimed the narrative created an impression that competing products were inferior due to a lack of adherence to classical texts, amounting to unfair competition and misleading advertising.

Conclusion

The legal dispute highlights the sensitivity surrounding comparative advertising and the boundaries between product promotion and disparagement. With the matter listed for hearing on September 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court’s next step will be crucial for both FMCG giants in the competitive chyawanprash market.

Disclaimer: This blog has been written exclusively for educational purposes. The securities or companies mentioned are only examples and not recommendations. This does not constitute a personal recommendation or investment advice. It does not aim to influence any individual or entity to make investment decisions. Recipients should conduct their own research and assessments to form an independent opinion about investment decisions.

Investments in securities are subject to market risks. Read all related documents carefully before investing.