CASE COMMENTS : UNFAIR PRACTICES – COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING – COUNTERFEITING – GENERIC DRUG

Comparative Advertising – Counterfeiting: The Court of Cassation rules that a manufacturer that mentions the tradmark of a drug similar to its generic drug in an advertising may behave in conformity with comparative advertising rules and without counterfeiting (Sandoz/Beecham Group and Laboratoire Glaxosmithkline)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Cass. com, May 24, 2011, Sandoz c/ Beecham Group and Laboratoire Glaxosmithkline, No. 09-70722 How can the need to promote the development of generic medicines, trade mark law and the comparative advertising regime be reconciled, while respecting Community law? It is this difficult exercise, which says a lot about the state of French economic law, that the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation had to tackle in its ruling of 24 May 2011. In this case, a pharmaceutical company had advertised in two trade journals the marketing of a generic drug. However, that company considered it useful to specify that it was a 'generic of Dexorat, published in the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Laurent Roberval, Comparative Advertising – Counterfeiting: The Court of Cassation rules that a manufacturer that mentions the tradmark of a drug similar to its generic drug in an advertising may behave in conformity with comparative advertising rules and without counterfeiting (Sandoz/Beecham Group and Laboratoire Glaxosmithkline), 24 May 2011, Concurrences N° 3-2011, Art. N° 38068, pp. 142-144

Visites 827

All reviews