Delhi High Court Issues Stern Warning to Patanjali Over 'Disparaging' Chyawanprash Ad Against Dabur

In a significant legal development that underscores the fierce competition in India's consumer goods market, the Delhi High Court has issued a stark warning to Patanjali Ayurved. The court has told the Ayurvedic giant to either withdraw its appeal challenging an interim order that restrained its Chyawanprash advertisement or prepare to face substantial financial penalties.

The contentious advertisement, which allegedly depicted Dabur's Chyawanprash in an unflattering light by suggesting it contained fewer immunity-boosting ingredients compared to Patanjali's product, became the focal point of a heated legal dispute.

A single judge of the High Court had, on March 13, 2024, passed an interim order putting a stop to Patanjali's controversial ad campaign.

Patanjali, seemingly undeterred, had appealed this decision. However, a division bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju made it abundantly clear that they found no merit in Patanjali's challenge.

During the recent hearing, the bench minced no words, stating unequivocally that the single judge's order was "absolutely correct."

"If you want to argue, argue, but we will impose costs," the bench sternly cautioned Patanjali's legal representative. "If you want to withdraw, then withdraw. This is an absolutely correct order.

There is no reason to entertain this appeal." This powerful admonition leaves little doubt about the court's view on the alleged disparaging nature of Patanjali's advertisement.

The court's firm stance highlights the stringent legal framework governing comparative advertising in India, particularly when one brand attempts to undermine a competitor's product.

Such advertising practices can lead to costly legal battles and reputational damage if not carefully managed.

Following the court's unequivocal warning, Patanjali's lawyer requested time to seek instructions from their client, hinting at a possible withdrawal of the appeal. The court, deferring to this request, has scheduled the next hearing for April 16.

The outcome of this decision could have significant implications for how fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies approach their marketing strategies, especially in the context of direct comparisons with rivals.

This episode serves as a potent reminder for all brands about the fine line between competitive advertising and unlawful disparagement, a line that the Delhi High Court is evidently keen to uphold with utmost rigor.