Marketing is perhaps the most critical area for the pharmaceutical industry and it is here all the unfair and unethical practices take place. And this industry being largely brand oriented, pharma companies incur huge expenditure to promote and build their brands. Probably that could be the main reason for the increasing number of brand related violations and unethical practices in pharmaceutical marketing. Misbranding is one such practice even some of the established companies tend to do. Two recent cases of misbranding are that of Dispirin Plus of Reckitt Benckiser and Aspro Plus of Nicholas Piramal. Disprin and Aspro have been well-established aspirin brands in the Indian pharmaceutical market for a long time. With a sharp cut in the price of aspirin by NPPA in early 2001, both the companies discontinued their products but did not want to give up their well-known brand names. The companies, thus, launched Disprin Plus and Aspro Plus with paracetamol as the only ingredient. In such cases of blatant misbranding, these companies had, in fact, placed lives of several patients at risk as most of them cannot be expected to comprehend the total change of ingredient in the brand. The regulatory authorities did not act against these companies for a long time until the press and trade brought pressure on them. The practice, unfortunately, is continuing as enforcement of regulations in this area continues to be weak.

Circulation of fake and look alike products by pharmaceutical companies is yet another serious problem the regulatory authorities have been finding difficult to curb. Largely, medium and small-scale drug companies are indulging in this unethical practice by using similar sounding names of established brands. The objective of using a well-known brand name with one or two spell change is just to take advantage of the good will created by established brand over a period. Such minor changes in the original brand name could easily misguide the consumer particularly in case of OTC products. The Karnataka Drug Control department's recent decision, in this context, to insist on a No Objection Certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks at the time of applying for manufacturing license for a new product can bring some check on this unfair practice. As the state drug authorities are not able to verify existence of similar sounding brands in the market while clearing license applications for new products, a NOC from Registrar of Trade Marks should be very helpful. Delhi is the only other state which is insisting on an NOC from the office of Trade Marks while applying for license for a new drug formulation. It would be ideal if all the state governments could adopt this practice in the interest of consumer.