Comparative Advertising — Disparagement — Generic disparagement
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC
Calling an entire class of rival products “dhoka / deception” amounts to generic disparagement — Even without naming a specific competitor, denigration of a product category is impermissible — Market leader within the disparaged class is entitled to protection.
[Paras 24.9–24.16, 28–29, 35–39]
Commercial Speech — Limits of Article 19(1)(a)
Commercial advertising is protected speech, but protection does not extend to false, misleading, unfair or deceptive representations — Freedom of speech does not include the right to disparage or defame competitors.
[Paras 25.2–25.5, 30–33]
Puffery vs Disparagement — Legal distinction
Exaggeration of one’s own product is permissible — Attributing inferiority, deception, fraud or lack of efficacy to rival products crosses from puffery into disparagement — The distinction between “my product is better” and “others are bad/deceptive” must be maintained.
[Paras 24.13–24.17, 29–33]
Generic Disparagement — Identification not necessary
Disparagement of a class or genre of products, without specifically identifying a competitor, is actionable — Clever advertising cannot escape liability merely by avoiding brand names.
[Paras 24.14–24.16, 39]
Medicinal / Ayurvedic Products — Statutory compliance
Where a product is manufactured in accordance with authoritative texts recognised under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, it cannot be portrayed as deceptive — Calling such products “dhoka” is ex-facie false and misleading.
[Paras 24.2, 24.9–24.12, 34–37]
Endorsements — Influence of spokesperson
Impact of an advertisement must be assessed considering the stature and influence of the endorser — Statements made by a person projected as an expert are likely to be taken as statements of fact by consumers.
[Paras 38, 35–36]
Interim Injunction — Balance of convenience — Irreparable harm
Where a prima facie case of disparagement is made out, balance of convenience lies in restraining the offending advertisement — Continuing broadcast would cause irreparable harm to goodwill and reputation.
[Paras 40–41]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Generic Disparagement as an Independent Wrong
The Court reiterates settled law that generic disparagement is as actionable as specific disparagement. Denigrating an entire category of goods necessarily harms competitors within that category, especially the market leader. The absence of brand reference is not decisive (Paras 24.14–24.16, 39).
B. Commercial Speech and Constitutional Limits
While acknowledging that advertising is protected under Article 19(1)(a), the Court emphasises that:
-
Falsehoods, deception and denigration fall outside constitutional protection.
-
Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions where public interest and fair competition are affected (Paras 25.2–25.5, 30).
C. Puffery Distinguished from Disparagement
The judgment carefully delineates the boundary:
-
Permissible: claiming superiority, highlighting additional features.
-
Impermissible: stating or implying that rival products deceive consumers or lack efficacy.
The use of the word “dhoka” is held to cross this boundary (Paras 24.13, 29–33).
D. Statutory Context — Ayurvedic Medicines
A crucial legal finding is that all Chyawanprash manufactured as per recognised Ayurvedic texts and licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are statutorily valid medicines. Branding such products as deceptive undermines the statutory framework itself (Paras 34–37).
E. Role of the Average Consumer
The test applied is that of an ordinary reasonable consumer with imperfect recollection. From such a perspective, the impugned advertisement conveys that all non-defendant Chyawanprash are fake or ineffective, which is misleading (Paras 35–36).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS FOUND)
-
Plaintiff Dabur India Limited is the market leader in Chyawanprash with over 61% market share (Paras 24.1–24.4).
-
Defendants Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Patanjali Foods Limited released the impugned advertisement in October 2025 (Paras 24.5–24.7).
-
Advertisement repeatedly used the word “dhoka” to describe Chyawanprash other than defendants’ product (Paras 24.6–24.13).
-
Prior Division Bench order had permitted comparison with “ordinary Chyawanprash” provided it did not deride or refer to the plaintiff’s product (Para 24.8).
-
Court found the impugned advertisement contrary to that liberty and prima facie disparaging (Paras 28–39).
IV. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS / RESULT
-
Ad-interim injunction granted.
-
Defendants restrained from issuing, broadcasting or disseminating the impugned advertisement or any advertisement referring to Chyawanprash as “dhoka / deceptive”.
-
Defendants directed to take down / disable the advertisement from all media platforms within 72 hours.
-
Replies and rejoinders directed; matter listed for further hearing.
[Paras 42–44]
Ratio (Concise)
Generic denigration of an entire class of products as deceptive, even without naming a competitor, constitutes actionable disparagement; commercial speech does not protect false or misleading attacks on rival goods, particularly in the case of medicinal products.
