Dabur fights for its reputation

Dabur fights for its reputation

Dabur had sought an interim injunction from the Delhi High Court on the ground that Emami’s advertisement was injurious to the reputation of Dabur’s product named Chyawanprash, the advertisement was scrutinized as it showed that other brands of Chyawanprash contained 50% of sugar as opposed to Emami’s product.

This would cause serious damage to Dabur as it would publish that Chyawanprash is harmful for its consumers. When a case was filled it was contended by lawyers representing Dabur that Chyawanpraksh contains several Ayurvedic recipes and thus requires a greater quantity of sugar to mix them properly and make them palatable.

It was argued that Emami’s product was specially made for diabetic patients thus the traditional non diabetic chyawanprash and sugar free chyavanprashad was not comparable. Mr. Abhimanyu, Ms. Roohina, and Mr.Anirudh from the side of Emami argued that it was not at all intended by the company to tarnish the image of the plaintiff in any way and the company has voluntarily made certain changes in the advertisement, the only aim and motive of the company was to inform its target consumers about the sugar free product that is available in the market.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea of the former and observed that court cannot interfere with the fair competition among the companies.

The court also observed that the advertisement declaring that Chyavanprashad contains 50% less sugar is factually correct and in a free society every seller has the right to declare his product as the best in the world. The court contented that Dabur’s contentions that the advertisement of the other company is misleading is not true, therefore there are no grounds as to why Emami should be restrained from publishing the said advertisement but court also held that Emami will be bound by the modifications it made voluntarily by way of affidavit filled in the court during this case.

The judgement was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula where he stated that “The Court should not restrain the defendant merely because the stakeholders in the industry feel that advertisement is hurting them”.