DABUR INDIA LIMITED Versus SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD.

FACTS

To prevent Shree Baidyanat Ayurved Bhawan Pvt Ltd (Defendant) from disparaging the
goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its product "Chyawanprash," which is sold under
the trademark "DABUR," Dabur India Limited (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in the Calcutta High
Court, asking for a permanent injunction. The current lawsuit was brought by Dabur India
against a marketing campaign that consisted of five impugned advertisements for Baidyanath
Chyawanprash's product "Baidyanath Chyawanprash Special" that were released by the
company one after another in October and November 2021. The plaintiff asked for an order
of injunction prohibiting the defendant from releasing, publishing, or uploading the allegedly
defamatory advertising about its brand and goods.

Plaintiff Contention
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's advertising were defamatory, false, and deceptive.
Since they were comparable in nature, unfair comparisons are punishable. Chyawanprash had
52 ingredients, according to the defendant's marketing, as compared to the "usual"
chyawanprash's 42 ingredients. In response, the plaintiff added that although there was no
overt mention of his product, the colour scheme of the bottle used in the marketing was
similar to that of the plaintiff's, making it simple for the millions of people around the world
to recognise.
By falsely claiming that its product is created with "100% pure ghee" whereas the plaintiff's
product is made with a combination of ghee and vegetable oil, the defendant has spread more
disinformation.
There are several ayurvedic texts listed in the First Schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
of 1940 that may be used to make chyawanprash, however none of these texts allow for the
use of 42 ingredients. 47 components are the bare minimum needed. The reference to "42" is
inaccurate, and as a result, it is derogatory.
The contested advertising' purpose and mode of depiction are deceptive and false. According
to the Plaintiff, commercial speech as defined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
does not provide protection for unfair or deceptive advertising (2). As a result, it is
prohibited.
Defendant Contention

In response, the defendant asserted that the freedom of speech and expression protected by
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution includes his advertisement and the right to engage in
commercial speech. The law states that any restrictions or limitations on advertising would
violate Article 19(1)'s basic right (a).

According to the defendant, comparative advertising is legal. Furthermore, the advertisement

used by the defendant in this case does not constitute a comparison advertisement in the
technical sense because it only contrasts the defendant's goods with an unnamed hypothetical
product.

JUDGEMENT
It was further highlighted that the defendant cannot assert the right to free expression when it
indicates that other Chyawanprash contains just 42 ingredients, which is an untrue assertion,
as it is not permitted to transmit untrue facts about the other competing products.

As a result, the court permanently injuncted the defendants' right to use the misleading and
defamatory claim in 4 out of 5 of their advertising. The court decided that the commercials
could still be used as long as the false and derogatory claim was dropped and the bottle
featured in the advertisement just had the word CHYAWANPRASH printed on it.