Comparison allowed, disparaging rivals not: Delhi HC to Patanjali in ‘dhoka’ row

The Delhi High Court on Thursday (November 6) asked Patanjali Ayurved how it could call other chyawanprash products "dhoka", which means "fraud".

The court said yoga guru Ramdev's Patanjali needed to consider using other words in its advertisements, and while comparisons between its product and that of others were allowed, disparaging other products was not permitted. The court made this observation while hearing a plea by Dabur India seeking an interim injunction against Patanjali's advertisement.

Controversial ad

The court was hearing a plea by Dabur India, which was aggrieved by a 25-second advertisement issued by Patanjali titled, "51 herbs. 1 truth. Patanjali Chyawanprash!"

Also Read: Rs 100 cr housing fraud in Mumbai; case filed against builder, others

In Patanjali's advertisement, a woman is seen feeding chyawanprash to her child, saying, "Chalo dhoka khao". Thereafter, Ramdev says, "Adhikansh log Chyawanprash ke naam par dhoka kha rahe hain (loosely translated into 'most people are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash')". The court reserved its order.

Arguments and observations

Justice Tejas Karia, during the hearing, orally observed, "You can claim that you are the best, but you cannot call others 'dhoka' which, in the English dictionary, means fraud and deception".

Counsel Rajiv Nayar, representing Patanjali Ayurved, claimed that Ramdev meant "ordinary" by the word dhoka. He further argued that, "I am saying all others are sadharan (ordinary) chyawanprash. When I say dhoka, I mean to say that I am special and others are ordinary".

'Ad targeting Dabur?'

In the counterargument, Dabur, which reportedly leads the chyawanprash market, argued that Patanjali's latest ad indirectly took a dig at its product. Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Dabur India, pointed out that the ad asked “Why would anyone settle for 40 herbs?” - a line associated with Dabur, as its chyawanprash is identified as being made with 40 herbs.

Also Read: Delhi HC restrains Patanjali from airing 'disparaging' ads against Dabur Chyawanprash

Sethi alleged that Ramdev was trying to create a communal divide only to sell his products.

"Chyawanprash, as a class of goods, is being termed as deceptive. They are referring to the entire gamut of chyawanprash manufacturers and sellers, and I am the market leader of chyawanprash. It is all being done to create panic," he added.

He further said that the words "dhoka khao" amounted to consuming fraudulent products and such words were ex facie disparaging as Dabur holds more than 60 per cent of the chyawanprash market.

"Coming from a self-proclaimed yoga guru is far more serious. People seek to identify a yoga guru with some sense of truthfulness," Sethi said.

'Dhoka, a negative word'

During the hearing, the court asked while calling other chyawanprash products as ordinary or inferior is permitted, but will calling them as "dhoka" not amount to disparaging them?

"Ordinary or special and dhoka is different. Here the question is you are calling all other chyawanprash other than you dhoka. Dhoka is a negative word. The word in English means fraud," Justice Karia told Patanjali's lawyer.

Nayar, however, argued that by using this word, Patanjali was not suggesting that other products were fake or spurious but rather that they were inferior and ineffective compared to its chyawanprash.

Also Read: Baba Ramdev's Patanjali under scanner for 'suspicious' transactions: Report

"I have not referred to him at all. All I am saying is that apart from me, all other chyawanprash are ineffective. Puffery is admitted. When a product is not targeted, an injunction never follows," he said.

In July, another judge of the High Court had allowed the interim applications of Dabur India Limited against Patanjali's advertisements and directed the latter to delete the first two lines of an advertisement — "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?"

The single judge had directed Patanjali to delete the offending portion, the order which was later challenged before the division bench. The division bench also directed Patanjali to remove the offending portion.

(With agency inputs)