Patanjali Ayurved on Friday moved the Delhi High Court to challenge an order restraining it from running disparaging advertisements against Dabur India’s Chyawanprash.

Delhi High Court’s Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that it was a case of generic disparagement and the statements submitted by Patanjali are an obvious reference to respondent Dabur.

During the hearing, Patanjali, led by yoga guru Baba Ramdev, was warned by the bench that in case the court finds its plea 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 court said.

“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.

The high court further said that the single judge bench has treated the advertisement as disparaging and it is an 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’,” the bench said.

“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,” it added.

It also said: “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’ 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.”

On July 3, the HC single judge had passed an order restraining Patanjali from running disparaging advertisements against Dabur Chyawanprash. It had said a strong prima facie case of disparagement was apparent in both TV and print ads.

The single judge bench issued 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.

What is disparagement?

It is the act of making false or misleading statements that negatively portray a competitor’s products or services.

What is generic disparagement?

It is the act of criticising an entire class of products or an industry rather than a specific competitor’s brand.