Delhi High Court warns Patanjali of costs for appealing against Dabur over Chyawanprash ad

The Delhi High Court on Friday pulled up Patanjali Ayurved for filing an appeal challenging a single-judge order directing them to delete parts of its advertisements that allegedly disparaged Chyawanprash products sold by rival companies including Dabur. [Patanjali Ayurved Vs Dabur Limited].A Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla asked Patanjali to either withdraw the appeal or face costs. The Bench noted that the order did not direct Patanjali to take down the entire ad, but only ordered modification of certain portions of it..Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for Patanjali, sought time to take instructions on the next course of action. The Court then listed the case for further consideration on September 23, Tuesday. .In July 2025, single-judge Justice Mini Pushkarna passed an interim order directing Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd. to modify their advertisements for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The order came in a suit filed by Dabur Limited, which alleged that Patanjali’s campaign disparaged its flagship Chyawanprash brand, which commands over 60% of the market.Dabur contended that Patanjali’s campaign amounted to generic disparagement by misrepresenting formulations, questioning Dabur’s fidelity to Ayurvedic tradition and branding its product as inferior.Justice Pushkarna held that certain claims in Patanjali’s ads went beyond permissible commercial puffery and amounted to disparagement.She directed Patanjali to delete phrases such as “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from print ads, and to remove portions of its television commercial storyboard which suggested that only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare “original Chyawanprash.” The advertisements were permitted to continue only after making such edits..Patanjali then filed an appeal before the High Court’s Commercial Appellate Division, contending that the single judge’s order violated established principles on commercial speech. It argued that the ads do not directly reference Dabur, that the use of the word “ordinary” has a neutral connotation recognised by precedent, and that its “special” formulation is based on the Ayurved Sar Sangrah with regulatory approval. It also argued that exaggeration is an accepted feature of advertising under the doctrine of puffery and that the interim order effectively pre-judged disputed issues such as whether Chyawanprash is to be made with 40 or 51 herbs..Dabur was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with advocates R Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru and Meghna Kumar.