Patanjali Ayurved moved the Delhi HC, challenging an earlier order that restrained the company from airing or publishing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur Chyawanprash.
A division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla expressed skepticism over the appeal.
The judges also criticised the tone and content of Patanjali’s advertisements, stating that the claims effectively discredited all other chyawanprash manufacturers.
Patanjali Ayurved on Friday moved the Delhi High Court, challenging an earlier order that restrained the company from airing or publishing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur Chyawanprash.
A division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla expressed skepticism over the appeal, suggesting it may be a case of generic disparagement and warning that costs could be imposed if the court finds the appeal frivolous.
At the outset of the hearing, the bench pointed to specific language used in Patanjali’s advertisement, particularly the line: “Why settle for ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” The court noted that this was a clear reference to Dabur, which is known for using 40 herbs in its formulation.
“When you say ‘ordinary chyawanprash made with 40 herbs’, you are making a public comparison that positions the respondent’s product as inferior,” the bench observed.
The judges also criticised the tone and content of Patanjali’s advertisements, stating that the claims effectively discredited all other chyawanprash manufacturers.
“‘Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi...’ this implies that others lack the knowledge or tradition to make genuine chyawanprash. This constitutes generic disparagement,” the court said.
The bench further questioned the need for the appeal, emphasising that the earlier restraining order by a single judge was interim and discretionary, issued after a strong prima facie case of disparagement was established.
“Why should we interfere with a discretionary interim order?” the court asked. “If we find this to be a luxury litigation or a pointless appeal, we will impose costs.”
Addressing Patanjali's legal counsel, the court added “You have ample resources. That does not mean you can file appeals in every case. We will not entertain ‘aaltu faaltu’ (frivolous) appeals.”
Patanjali’s counsel requested time to consult with the company’s representatives. The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on September 23.
The dispute stems from an order dated July 3, when a single judge of the Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali from publishing or airing advertisements targeting Dabur Chyawanprash. The court had granted an interim injunction in response to a plea by Dabur, stating that the advertisements appeared to constitute a clear case of product disparagement. Patanjali was also directed to delete the contentious phrase from its print campaigns and amend the Hindi versions accordingly.
With PTI inputs
