Delhi HC orders Patanjali to remove ad after Dabur complaint over Chyawanprash

In an advertisement battle over the 'Chyawanprash' product, the Delhi High Court has pronounced an order in favour of Dabur India Ltd. The high court has barred Baba Ramdev-led Patanjali from running the disparaging ad campaigns against Dabur.

According to a report by Bar & Bench, Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the interim order on a defamation lawsuit filed by Dabur against Patanjali.

The legal battle between the two FMCG brands started in December 2024, when Patanjali ran an advertisement, questioning the authenticity of other companies' Chyawanprash products.

Delhi HC orders Patanjali to respond to Dabur’s defamation lawsuit over chyawanprash ads

The Patanjali ad, featuring Baba Ramdev, mentioned, "Jnko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyan nahi...Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari aur Chyawanrishi ke Parampara mein 'original' chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?" (People do not have knowledge of Ayurveda and Vedas... How will they be able to make the 'original' Chyavanprash in the tradition of Charak, Sushruta, Dhanvantari and Chyavanrishi?).

Dabur takes Patanjali Ayurved to court over ‘disparaging’ Chyawanprash ad

Dabur contended that the ad also called a "40-herb Chyawanprash" an ordinary product.

The company claimed that Patanjali directly targeted its product, which advertises itself using (40-plus herbs).

Dabur argued that Patanjali’s marketing suggested that its own Chyawanprash is the “original” and “best” version, based on an exclusive Ayurvedic tradition that supposedly outmatches all other products. Patanjali has called Dabur's product inferior, the Ghaziabad-headquartered firm said.

Dabur argued that Patanjali's claims misrepresent the Chyawanprash formulae, dismissing other Ayurvedic texts as inferior and undermining the integrity of competing brands.

Dabur also alleged that the ad tried to manipulate the audience into believing that only Patanjali's products are healthy for consumption. Further, Dabur cited earlier Supreme Court orders in contempt proceedings against Patanjali over disparaging ads, arguing that the company is a habitual offender.