A South African court has ruled in favour of Adcock Ingram and Zambon SPA. It ordered Cipla Medpro to stop using the trademark Furizome for its urinary tract infection (UTI) medication. The court found Furizome to be confusingly similar to the established Urizone trademark, central to Adcock Ingram's branding strategy. This led to a ruling based on trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The Dispute: Urizone vs Furizome
The case involved Urizone, a Fosfomycin-based UTI treatment marketed by Adcock Ingram since 1993. It also involved Cipla's generic version, Furizome, which was launched in February 2023. Adcock Ingram argued that Cipla chose the name to exploit Urizone's reputation. Consequently, this led to consumer confusion.
Cipla claimed that Furizome was distinct, deriving its name from "F" for Fosfomycin and "Uri" for urinary use. They highlighted that both products, being Schedule 4 medications, were dispensed with professional safeguards against confusion.
Court Findings
The court sided with Adcock Ingram, noting visual and phonetic similarities between the names. It also emphasised the consumers' potential for confusion, especially given Adcock Ingram's Urizone being well-established. The court upheld that patients play an active role in choosing medications, which could lead to errors even with professional input.
Verdict and Implications
The court issued an interdict against Cipla using the Furizome name. Furthermore, it ordered Cipla to pay legal costs. This ruling underscores the importance of distinct trademarks in the pharmaceutical industry, highlighting Adcock Ingram's concerns with their Urizone brand. It applies even to generics, given patients' increasing involvement in healthcare decisions.