Patanjali moves HC against order blocking ads targeting Dabur Chyawanprash

Patanjali Ayurved on Friday approached the Delhi High Court challenging an order restraining it from running disparaging advertisements against Dabur Chyawanprash.

At the outset, a bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla orally observed that it was a case of generic disparagement and the statements made by Patanjali are an obvious reference to respondent Dabur.

The court warned Patanjali that in case it finds it to be a luxury litigation and a useless appeal, it will impose costs.

You have said- 'Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?' So when you have used the word 40 herbs, it is an obvious reference to the respondent (Dabur).

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 mine (Patanjali) is excellent and why settle for his chyawanprash, the bench told Patanjali's counsel.

It said that the single judge has treated the advertisement as disparaging and it is any interim order and there is no reason why the division bench should sit over the discretionary order in this regard.

These are plainly disparaging content. 'Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi Ki Parampara ke Anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge'.

So you have painted in black everyone else who is making chyawanprash that they don't know what chyawanprash is and how it is made so how will they make chyawanprash. This is a generic disparagement case. The interim order is purely discretionary. Why should we interfere with this interim order? Tell us, the bench said.

It added, If we find now that it is a useless appeal, we will impose costs. If we find it is a luxury litigation, we will impose a cost. We have made our minds clear to you. Where is your irreparable loss? We are not going to allow aaltu faaltu' ki appeals for everything. It is not that this order is going to hurt you. You have lots of money so you can file an appeal in every case.

As Patanjali's lawyer urged the court to grant him some time to sit with his clients and discuss the matter, the court listed the appeal for further hearing on September 23.

On July 3, the single judge had restrained Patanjali from running disparaging advertisements against Dabur Chyawanprash, saying a strong prima facie case of disparagement was apparent in both TV and print ads.

It had granted an interim injunction on Dabur's plea and directed Patanjali to delete 'Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?' from the print advertisements and accordingly modify it in Hindi.

The judge had noted that the TV commercial was narrated by Ramdev, who is an acknowledged yoga and vedic expert and appears in person in the advertisement, and said that the narrative of the commercial assumes more importance coming from the mouth of a person popularly known to be an expert in the field.

The petition filed by Dabur alleged "Patanjali Special Chyawanprash" was "disparaging DABUR Chyawanprash specifically" and chyawanprash in general, by claiming that "no other manufacturer has the knowledge to prepare chyawanprash" -- constituting generic disparagement.

"In addition, false and misleading statements made in the advertisements (in respect of an ayurvedic drug/medicine), in disparaging comparison with DABUR Chyawanprash," the petition claimed.

The petition further claimed the advertisement used the prefix "ordinary" with respect to all other chyawanprash, denoting that they were "inferior".

The advertisement also made "untrue" claims that all other manufacturers had no knowledge of Ayurvedic texts and the formulae used to prepare chyawanprash, it added.