The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, disposed of an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurveda against a single-judge order restraining it from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur\u2019s Chyawanprash.<\/p>\n
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar <\/b>and Om Prakash Shukla<\/b> examined Patanjali\u2019s advertisement carrying the line, \u201cWhy settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?\u201d The Court ruled that Patanjali can use the phrase \u201cWhy settle for ordinary Chyawanprash\u201d but directed it to delete the \u201cmade with 40 herbs\u201d reference, noting it was a clear allusion to Dabur, which markets its product as containing 40 herbs.<\/p>\n
Appearing for Patanjali, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar submitted, \u201cI will drop the challenge, my Lords, but would like to retain the word \u2018ordinary.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
On this point, the Bench observed, \u201cUsing the word \u2018ordinary\u2019 is not per se disparagement, because everyone has the right to say mine is the best and the rest of the world is ordinary. So long as it does not disparage, it is permissible.\u201d<\/p>\n
For Dabur, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi opposed the proposal, arguing that since Chyawanprash falls under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a product compliant with statutory standards cannot be described as \u201cordinary.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court, however, remarked,\u201cLet\u2019s be realistic, we are dealing with chyawanprash, not with drugs. He (Patanjali) is trying to say: look, my chyawanprash is very good and better than others. To say that is disparagement may be stretching the concept of disparagement.\u201d<\/p>\n
It further explained that advertising law permits comparative advertising. A company may project its product as superior, even suggesting rivals are less effective, so long as there is no outright disparagement. \u201cSaying \u2018I am the best and others are not as good as me\u2019 is permissible,\u201d the Court added.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Court allowed Patanjali to continue using the word \u201cordinary\u201d but upheld the remaining aspects of the single judge\u2019s order. The appeal was disposed of with this modification.<\/p>\n