Stop 'disparaging' ads against Dabur, Delhi HC tells Patanjali
NEW DELHI:
Delhi high court
on Thursday restrained Ramdev-owned Patanjali from running "disparaging" advertisements against rival company Dabur's Chyawanprash.
Justice Mini Pushkarna allowed the interim injunction on Dabur's plea, which alleged that Patanjali was running down other Chyawanprash brands, specifically Dabur's product, by claiming that "no other manufacturer has the knowledge to prepare 'original' Chyawanprash as per authentic Ayurvedic tradition".
Dabur's petition stated that in television and print advertisements, Patanjali made "fallacious and deliberate mis-statements", denigrating and defaming its product. The advertisements made specific reference to "Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs", calling it "ordinary", which Dabur claimed was an attempt to portray its product as inferior. The company advertises its Chyawanprash using '40+ herbs' as a USP.
The petitioner company alleged that actually Patanjali's products might contain substances which, as per the Central Consumer Protection Authority advisory, should come with a disclaimer.
Patanjali, on its part, argued that it never named Dabur directly, and followed proper guidelines. The company claimed that it was not trying to damage any specific brand. HC posted the matter for July 14.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
High court sets aside rent controller order citing misuse of Delhi Rent Control Act
New Delhi: Flagging the "egregious misuse" of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the High Court has termed it an "anachronistic piece of legislation" and set aside a rent controller's 2013 order. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani, in a recent order, was dealing with petitions against the orders of the additional rent controller (ARC) that dismissed eviction petitions filed by owners of properties in Sadar Bazar. The owners are now based in the UK and Dubai and sought eviction of their tenants, but their plea was dismissed by the ARC, which ruled in favour of the tenants. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "This court is compelled to record that while manning the rent control roster, it found that cases abound where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity persist in unjustly occupying premises for decades on end, paying a pittance for rent, while in the process their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances, resulting from egregious misuse of an anachronistic piece of legislation, namely the Delhi Rent Control Act," HC noted in its verdict. Allowing the plea of the petitioners to evict the tenants, the court saw merit in the grounds cited by the petitioners for seeking eviction of tenants from the premises on the ground that they run two restaurants in London and require the space for expanding the business in India. The ARC denied the eviction, noting that the petitioners were settled in and were running their businesses in London and Dubai, and did not require the premises for their "subsistence or survival," and that their bona fide requirement did not amount to being an "actual need. " It also said the premises were too small to run a sit-in restaurant from. Taking a dim view of such reasoning, HC set aside the ARC's eviction order and said, "the financial well-being of a landlord, or the financial ill-health of a tenant, were not relevant considerations while deciding an eviction petition." It observed that whether "they can run a full-fledged, sit-down restaurant or a smaller food take-away joint is entirely the petitioners' prerogative; and the bona fides of their requirement cannot be discounted based merely on the learned ARC's assessment of whether a food business can be run from the subject premises. This view taken by the ARC is flawed." In 2019, the High Court rejected a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the rent control law governing parts of Delhi. An appeal against the same is pending before the Supreme Court. |
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Talcum powder ad calling other products ‘ordinary' not an insult
Kolkata: Using the word 'sadharan' (ordinary) for other products in a talcum powder advertisement is not an insult to the rival company's product, Calcutta High Court observed on Wednesday while dismissing Emami's "disparagement" claim against Dabur. A division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar said: "It is permissible to portray that the advertiser's product is the best in the world. However, what is shunned is the direct or indirect denigration of the product of another manufacturer. Use of the word 'sadharan' in the context of the present advertisement does not speak ill about the product or say that it is inferior as such. It merely projects the respondent's product as extraordinary as compared to others' products, which are said to be 'sadharan' or ordinary. " The court noted that the freedom of commercial speech of Dabur (respondent) and its fundamental right to do business cannot be "throttled" on a vague perception of disparagement, "which is completely illusory" in the present case. You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata Emami Limited filed a case against Dabur India Limited for its 'Cool King' advertisement. They claimed that the protagonist in the advertisement is shown carrying a bottle labelled as ordinary, which looked similar to that of their prickly heat powders "Dermi Cool" and "Navratna". In July 2024, Emami filed a case and got a temporary stop order on July 11, 2024, by which Dabur was restrained from showing the disputed bottle. The court also noted that in the advertisement, there was "no mouthing of the name of the appellant's product and the bottle shown is completely different in shape, size and colour from that of the appellant's product". "Even taking into consideration the overreaching sweep of the appellant's products in the market, unless one is an avid follower of advertisements, having nothing better to do, it is improbable that a common target consumer of normal prudence would have such double recall upon viewing the 'offending' advertisement, connecting the present bottle with that of a bottle which was being shown six months back, and to relate the previous bottle with the product of the appellant," the HC held.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
SC refuses to entertain HDFC MD's plea on FIR
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain HDFC Bank managing director Sashidhar Jagdishan's petition seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against him by Lilavati hospital trust, even as it termed unfortunate the repeated adjournment of a similar plea of his before Bombay HC because of recusal of judges. Appearing for Jagdishan, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi termed the FIR as "frivolous" and said his client had no role in the entire controversy alleged by the trust. There was an atmosphere of uncertainty because of the FIR, he stressed, and requested a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan to grant him interim protection from possible arrest. But the bench refused to entertain his appeal, highlighting that his plea for quashing the FIR is listed for hearing before the HC on July 14. "You go before the HC and argue on the merits of the case," it said. When Rohatgi pointed out that there is no certainty of the petition getting heard as judge after judge is recusing themselves from hearing the plea, the bench said, "We sympathise with you. It is unfortunate that so many judges have recused themselves, and the hearings earlier scheduled for June 18, 20, 25 and 26 got adjourned," adding, "we hope the HC hears the petition on July 14". You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai As per the trust's complaint with Bandra police station, Jagdishan allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore in exchange for providing financial advice to help the Chetan Mehta Group retain illegal and undue control over the trust's governance. The trust also claimed that Jagdishan and his family received free medical treatment at Lilavati Hospital.
