In a hearing that drew noticeable attention in the courtroom on Thursday, the Delhi High Court questioned Patanjali Ayurved over its recent Chyawanprash advertisement calling other brands “dhoka,” meaning fraud. The bench appeared cautious about whether promoting one’s own product could cross into unfairly belittling competitors. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court reserved its order on Dabur India’s plea seeking to immediately stop the advertisement from airing.
Background
Dabur, which holds a major share of the Chyawanprash market, approached the court claiming that Patanjali’s 25-second commercial was not mere puffery-an advertising tactic to glorify one’s own product-but direct disparagement. In the ad, a woman offers Chyawanprash to a child with the line, “chalo dhoka khao,” followed by Baba Ramdev saying, “adhikansh log Chyawanprash ke naam par dhoka kha rahe hain.”
Dabur’s counsel argued that this wording implies that all other Chyawanprash products, except Patanjali’s, are deceptive or fraudulent. Since Chyawanprash is manufactured according to regulated Ayurvedic standards, Dabur asserted that calling licensed competitors “dhoka” attacks the entire industry’s legitimacy.
Court’s Observations
Justice Tejas Karia closely examined the language used in the commercial. At one point, the judge remarked, “The word ‘dhoka’ has a strong meaning. Calling something ordinary is one thing, but calling it fraud is very different.”
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi for Dabur emphasized that the advertisement does not compare ingredients, formulation differences, or quality variations but labels the entire market as dishonest. He submitted that Dabur, being the largest manufacturer, is clearly the implied target. Sethi also suggested that such messaging could create unnecessary distrust in Ayurvedic products, especially when coming from a public figure perceived as a “spiritual authority.”
On the other side, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar representing Patanjali insisted the advertisement simply conveys that Patanjali’s product is superior. He clarified, “We are not calling others fake. We are saying they are less effective. This is permitted puffery.”
However, the judge pushed back gently, observing that comparison is allowed, but branding competitors as “fraud” blurs the legal boundaries. “Inferior and fraud do not mean the same. One is criticism, the other is accusation,” the bench noted.
The Court also pointed out that the tone and phrasing of the ad may lead viewers to internalize the claim as a direct allegation rather than market comparison. It described the matter as a “borderline case,” where commercial competition risks turning into reputational harm.
Decision
After hearing both sides for some time, the Court did not issue any immediate injunction. Instead, it reserved its order on Dabur’s plea to block the advertisement. The final decision is expected to clarify how far companies can go in aggressive marketing without stepping into the territory of unfair disparagement.
Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Anr. vs. Dabur India Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Issue: Patanjali’s TV commercial uses the word “dhoka”, implying other Chyawanprash products are fraudulent
Dabur’s Claim: The advertisement damages reputation of all licensed Chyawanprash manufacturers; seeks interim injunction to stop the ad
Patanjali’s Defense: Claims it is “permissible puffery”, only promoting its product as superior, not calling others fake