A succession of regulatory, legal, and commercial events in India occurred during approximately ten years on the use of the term "ORS" (Oral Rehydration Salts) on food and beverage products - which, in turn, is raising concerns that are still pertinent to policymakers, businesses and practitioners in the field of public health.

This case study analyses the issue of the commercialization of the term ‘ORS’ on products which failed to meet the WHO standards of therapeutic use. At its centre lies a question that borders regulation and commerce: in what circumstances should the usage of medically related terms toward consumer goods be limited, and how should competing interests be weighed in making that determination?

The case brings together a diverse set of actors including a medical practitioner with a long- standing advocacy history, consumer health companies with established trademarks and major commercial interests, the apex food regulator of India, and the Delhi High Court, each with its mandate and priorities to follow. It traces how Public Interest Litigations, regulatory advisories, and industry petitions converged in 2025, leading to an FSSAI directive on the use of "ORS" labelling and the judicial proceedings that followed.

The case surfaces enduring questions in public policy and governance: What should be the response of a multi-agency regulatory system when the jurisdictions of drugs and food collide? How should established trademarks be considered in the event that labelling concerns are raised? And what does the courts do in regards to the construction between constitutional safeguards of health and of trade?

Suitable for courses in public policy, business law, health governance, and corporate ethics, the case presents students with a set of genuine trade-offs - between regulatory clarity and market flexibility, enforcement speed and legal certainty, and consumer protection and commercial rights - without prescribing a single resolution.