In India's crowded market for wellness products, Chyawanprash—a thick, herbal health supplement—has long been a symbol of vitality. But even ancient recipes can spark modern legal battles.
This July, the Delhi High Court stepped in to resolve a heated dispute 1 between Dabur, the biggest name in chyawanprash, and Patanjali, the high-profile challenger known for aggressive marketing. The Court restrained Patanjali from airing ads that suggested Dabur's product was second-rate or somehow less authentic.
The Campaign That Crossed the Line
Patanjali launched a series of television and print ads promoting its chyawanprash as the "only" true Ayurvedic formulation made with "51 authentic herbs."
Though Dabur wasn't named outright, the reference to "40 herbs" was unmistakable. For a company whose identity and advertising have always focused on that number, it was clear who Patanjali had in mind.
Dabur argued these messages were more than bold claims—they were a calculated attempt to undermine consumer confidence in its products.
The Law on Comparative Advertising in India
India, like many countries, allows companies to promote their products assertively, but there is a structured legal framework defining how far such promotion can go.
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999, in Section 29(8), makes it clear that advertising which takes unfair advantage of another's trademark, is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of another mark, amounts to trademark infringement. However, Section 30(1) of the same Act provides an important defence: comparative advertising is permitted if the use of another's mark is honest, proportionate, does not harm the mark's reputation, and does not mislead the public.
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, also sets out safeguards. Section 2(28) defines a misleading advertisement, while Section 21 empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to impose monetary penalties—up to ₹10 lakh for a first offence and ₹50 lakh for repeat offences—as well as to order the modification or withdrawal of non-compliant advertisements.
- Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), although self-regulatory, is highly respected and its Code frequently cited in court orders. Under Chapter I, Clause 4 and Chapter IV of the ASCI Code, advertisers are required to ensure that all claims are legal, decent, honest, and truthful. Comparative claims must be based on facts and presented in a way that does not unfairly denigrate competitors.
- The Delhi High Court's decision in Godrej Sara Lee v. Reckitt Benckiser 2 remains the benchmark authority in this area. The court emphasized a core principle: an advertiser is entitled to highlight the advantages of its product, and may even claim that its product is better than a competitor's-even if that claim turns out to be untrue. However, it cannot cross the line into disparaging the competitor's goods. Relying on earlier decisions including Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran 3, the court summarized the following propositions:
- An advertiser can claim superiority or make comparisons, but cannot imply that a competitor's product is inferior or harmful.
- Comparative advertising is permissible when based on factual comparisons that do not mislead the consumer or defame the competitor.
- Negative insinuations or campaigns that project the competitor's goods as bad or substandard amount to disparagement, which may invite injunctions and damages.
Court's Analysis in Dabur v. Patanjali
The court analyzed the ads and found several problems:
- Implied Accusations – The suggestion that other brands were "ordinary" or lacking authentic Ayurvedic knowledge was not mere puffery. It cast doubt on their legitimacy.
- No Proof of Superiority – Patanjali did not provide evidence confirming its claims about having 51 herbs.
- Identification of Dabur – Even without naming Dabur, the reference to "40 herbs" left little doubt about the intended target.
- Large-Scale Impact – With these ads reaching millions on television and in newspapers, the Court emphasized that their potential to damage reputation was substantial.
In other words, the campaign blurred the line between competitive marketing and unfair denigration.
In July 2025, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order directing Patanjali to modify its television and print advertisements by removing the disputed statements. Patanjali was permitted to run the impugned print advertisements and TVC after making the aforementioned modifications.
What This Means for Brands
This case is a reminder that competitive advertising is not a free-for-all. Brands are welcome to highlight their strengths and innovations, but the law expects them to be able to back up specific claims with data.
A few lessons stand out:
- If you imply your competitor's product is unsafe or fake, be prepared to prove it.
- If you point to specific numbers—like "51 herbs vs 40 herbs"—you must have evidence that the comparison is accurate.
- Even indirect yet obvious references can qualify as targeting a competitor.
In short, persuasive advertising should not slip into character attacks dressed up as comparisons.
A Record of Repeat Run-Ins with the Law
This skirmish is part of a larger pattern. In February 2024, India's Supreme Court issued a contempt notice and a temporary ban on Patanjali's "miracle-cure" medicine ads after the company ignored an earlier pledge to tone down medical claims. Read here.
Just three months before the current chyawanprash fight, the Delhi High Court blasted Patanjali's "sharbat jihad" campaign against Hamdard's Rooh Afza and ordered the ads off the air, calling the language "shocking." 4
Each time, Patanjali offered apologies or undertakings, the specific campaign was shelved—and the brand moved on with fresh marketing. Low statutory fines and lengthy damages trials mean the short-term cost of an injunction seldom outweighs the publicity boost from a headline-grabbing ad. Critics therefore argue that India's current mix of consumer-protection penalties, ASCI self-regulation, and contempt powers lacks the bite to deter serial violations.
Conclusion
The Dabur–Patanjali clash reinforces a simple rule: trumpet your virtues, but tread carefully when talking about the competition. Until Indian law attaches penalties that genuinely outweigh the marketing upside of controversy, repeat offenders may keep gambling on attention-grabbing claims. For now, though, Patanjali's latest ad blitz is off the air—and the line between spirited promotion and disparagement stands a little clearer.
Footnotes
1 Dabur India Limited vs Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr, CS(COMM) 1195/2024, Jul 3, 2025
2 Godrej Sara Lee v. Reckitt Benckiser, 2006(32)PTC307(DEL), Feb 15, 2006
3 Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran, 1999 P.T.C. (19) 741, Aug 24, 1998
4 Sohini Ghosh, The Indian Express, "Sharbat jihad': HC pulls up Patanjali, says 'can't believe eyes and ears'", Apr 23, 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
