Patanjali Ayurved has approached the Delhi High Court to contest an interim order restraining it from running advertisements deemed disparaging toward Dabur Chyawanprash. During Friday’s hearing, a bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla labeled the case a clear instance of "generic disparagement," warning Patanjali of potential costs for pursuing what they termed a "luxury litigation" and "useless appeal."

The controversy stems from Patanjali’s advertisements, including a TV commercial narrated by yoga guru Ramdev, which claimed that other chyawanprash brands, specifically referencing Dabur’s product made with "40 herbs," are "ordinary" and lack the expertise of Ayurvedic traditions like Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri, and Chyawanrishi.

The bench criticized Patanjali’s campaign, stating, “The moment you say ordinary chyawanprash with 40 herbs, you are making a representation to the public that the respondent’s chyawanprash is ordinary and yours is excellent.” The court further noted that the ads painted all other chyawanprash manufacturers as ignorant of authentic Ayurvedic preparation methods.

On July 3, 2025, a single judge had issued an interim injunction in favor of Dabur, prohibiting Patanjali from continuing the disparaging ads and ordering the removal of the phrase “Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from print advertisements, with equivalent modifications in Hindi. The judge highlighted the influence of Ramdev’s endorsement, given his reputation as a yoga and Vedic expert, which amplified the impact of the allegedly misleading narrative.

Also Read: Massive Landslide Forces Closure of Shimla’s Historic St Edwards

Dabur’s petition accused Patanjali’s “Special Chyawanprash” campaign of falsely claiming that no other manufacturer possesses the knowledge to produce authentic chyawanprash, constituting both specific disparagement of Dabur’s product and generic disparagement of the category. The petition further alleged that the ads made “false and misleading” statements by labeling competitors’ products as “inferior” and questioning their Ayurvedic credentials.

The court expressed skepticism about the appeal’s merit, questioning Patanjali’s claim of irreparable loss and emphasizing that the interim order was discretionary. “We are not going to allow ‘aaltu faaltu’ ki appeals for everything,” the bench remarked, signaling that costs could be imposed if the appeal is deemed frivolous. Patanjali’s counsel requested time to consult with clients, and the court scheduled the next hearing for September 23, 2025.

This legal battle underscores the intensifying competition in India’s Ayurvedic product market, with Patanjali facing scrutiny for its aggressive advertising tactics against a major rival.

Also Read: Haier Targets Big Festive Growth in India After GST Rate Cut