Delhi: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd. have approached the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Appellate Division challenging an interim order that had directed them to modify their advertising campaign for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The order, passed in July by Justice Mini Pushkarna, came on a plea filed by Dabur, which argued that Patanjali’s campaign disparaged rival Chyawanprash products, including its own market-leading brand. Justice Pushkarna had directed Patanjali to delete phrases like “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from print ads and to edit portions of its TV commercial suggesting that only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare “original Chyawanprash.”
In its appeal, Patanjali has argued that the single judge’s decision runs contrary to established principles governing commercial speech and advertising puffery. The company contends that its ads never identified Dabur’s product and were merely aimed at highlighting the strengths of Patanjali’s formulation. The use of the term “ordinary,” it maintains, is neutral and has been recognised by courts as non-derogatory. Patanjali further points out that its “Special Chyawanprash” formulation is derived from Ayurved Sar Sangrah, a recognised classical text, and has received regulatory approval from the Uttarakhand licensing authority.
The company has also drawn attention to the broader industry practice of comparative advertising, citing Dabur’s own campaigns that claim “2x/3x immunity” without support from authoritative Ayurvedic texts. Patanjali argues that puffery and embellishment are an accepted part of advertising protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that ads must be viewed from the standpoint of the average consumer rather than dissected frame by frame. It has also stressed that the interim order effectively decided the suit without a full trial, despite disputed issues such as the number of herbs used in different formulations.
Dabur, which controls over 60% of the Chyawanprash market, had moved the court in December 2024 claiming that Patanjali’s campaign amounted to generic disparagement. The company argued that Patanjali misrepresented formulations, cast doubts on Dabur’s adherence to Ayurvedic tradition, and branded its product as inferior. It also said the campaign risked misleading consumers by implying health hazards from non-Patanjali Chyawanprash, while pointing to Patanjali’s previous run-ins with courts over misleading ads. The appellate proceedings are now set to determine the extent to which puffery and comparative claims are permissible in India’s highly competitive health supplement market.
