Can't Call Competitors Fraud: Delhi HC Castigates Patanjali Over 'Dhoka' Chyawanprash Ad
The high court's remarks came while hearing the arguments in a 'disparaging ads' case against Patanjali, wherein it reserved its verdict on the interim injunction application in the same suit.
The Delhi High Court slammed Patanjali on Thursday for a chyawanprash advertisement that has been garnering a lot of criticism.
Justice Tejas Karia questioned Patanjali about how they can refer to chyawanprash prepared by other companies as dhoka, adding that while Patanjali can claim to be the best, it cannot call its competitors fraud.
"You are saying everyone is dhoka, and I am genuine. How can you call all other chyawanprash dhoka? You can say inferior, but you can’t call them fraud… Is there no other word available in the dictionary which can be used other than dhoka," the HC stated.
The high court's remarks came while hearing the arguments in a 'disparaging ads' case against Patanjali, wherein it reserved its verdict on the interim injunction application in the same suit.
Patanjali is being sued by Dabur over an ad which had allegedly termed all other chyawanprash brands dhoka (fraud or deception) while promoting its own product. The court also termed dhoka a negative word and remarked that the company is claiming that people are eating fraud.
In addition to this, Dabur has accused Patanjali of making false claims that its chyawanprash contains "51 Ayurvedic herbs and saffron," despite a 2014 government advisory deeming the same claim misleading.
Further, it contends that the Patanjali's use of the adjective 'Special' as a prefix to a classical Ayurvedic medicine is in violation of Rule 157(1-B) of the Drugs Rules, which bans misleading and deceptive labelling of Ayurvedic formulations.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi argued for Dabur and stated that chyawanprash is a class of goods, and by referring to all other chyawanprash as dhoka, Patanjali was disparaging all of them.
On the other hand, Patanjali's lawyer, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, defended Patanjali's commercial by justifying its means under puffery and hyperbole, which he said was permissible under law.
“We have to see the entire meaning that the advertisement is conveying. right or wrong, it is hyperbole. I am saying all others are ineffective. I am trying to convey that 'forget about other chyawanprash, consume only mine'. I am allowed to say that I am the best. I am saying all others are inferior in comparison to mine,” he argued.
