Even as the presence of look-alike drugs continue to pose headaches for both consumer and drugs control authorities, fresh complaints have been posted on an online forum against the presence of two different drugs marketed under the same brand name. The brand name in question is "LONA, which is reportedly being used by both Dabur and Trinton for entirely different products.
According to the observations made by a Chennai based medical practitioner, Dabur pharmacy sells a salt containing low sodium under the brandname "LONA" while "Calyx" a division of "Triton Health Care Pvt. Ltd." markets "Clonazepam" under the same trade name "LONA".
He also highlights another instance where Alkem Lab is marketing a multivitamin under the brand name "A-Z" while "AZ" is used by Kopran to sell Azithromycin. To add on to the confusion of the medical practitioners, Kare Health Specialties has a brand "ABZ" which is a third product - Albendazole.
Interestingly, all these products are from well known companies and are likely to have proper registration. Medical practitioners feel that such practices are not only confusing to the medical fraternity, but also create problems for the patients. They wanted the drug control authorities to ensure that no look-alike brands are being approved by the authorities.
It should be remembered that the issue of look-alike products has been a matter of discussion by all high power committees formed to recommend measures to improve the quality of drug regulation in the country. Both DGHS Committee, and recently Dr Mashelkar Committee had requested the states not to licence products with look-alike brand names. Atleast two states had made search reports from the Registrar of Trade Marks compulsory before clearing any drug manufacturing license under a particular brand name.
In spite of all these initiatives, the trend to approve, almost similar, or even the same brand name continues, thereby calling for a serious thought on the part of the authorities.
As pharmabiz had reported earlier, the Supreme Court had, few years ago, suggested the central drug regulatory authorities to consider making it mandatory for the applicant to submit an official search report from the Trade Mark Office pertaining to the trademark in question. "Keeping in view the provisions of Section 17 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which inter alia indicates that an imitation or resemblance of another drug in a manner likely to deceive being regarded as spurious drug it is but proper that before granting permission to manufacture a drug under a brand name the authority under the Act is satisfied that there will be no confusion or deception in the market," the SC had observed.
The Apex Court had also pointed out that "While medicinal products are involved, the test to be applied for adjudging the violation of trade mark law may not be on par with the cases involving non-medicinal products. A stricter approach should be adopted while applying the test to judge the possibility of confusion of one medicinal product may only cause economic loss to the plaintiff, confusion between the two medicinal products may have disastrous effects on health and in some cases life itself. Stringent measures should be adopted specially where medicines are the medicines of last resort as any confusion in such medicines may be fatal or could have disastrous effects. The confusion as to the identity of the product itself could have dire effects on the public health".