In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the Western Cape High Court found in favour of Adcock Ingram Limited in a trade mark infringement dispute against Cipla-Medpro (Pty) Limited, on 17 April 2025. The case centred on whether Cipla\u2019s use of the name FURIZOME for its broad-spectrum antibiotic was confusingly similar to URIZONE, a medicine registered and marketed by Adcock Ingram under licence from Italian company Zambon S.p.A. since 1995.<\/p>\n
Both medicines are prescribed for urinary tract infections and fall under Schedule 4, meaning they are only available through a doctor\u2019s prescription and are dispensed by pharmacists. Cipla launched FURIZOME in early 2023 as a generic alternative to URIZONE. However, Adcock Ingram challenged the name, alleging trade mark infringement, passing off, and unlawful competition.<\/p>\n
The High Court agreed with Adcock Ingram, concluding that the two names were \u201cstrikingly similar\u201d and posed a material risk of confusion or deception for patients. Importantly, the court rejected Cipla\u2019s argument that prescription-only status sufficiently mitigates the risk of confusion, emphasising instead the role of patients in the decision-making process about their treatment.<\/p>\n
While doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them, the court noted that patients are increasingly engaged in their own healthcare choices. \u201cWhen a patient requests a specific medicine by its brand name for a particular condition, they are likely to ask for something they are familiar with, have heard of, or read about,\u201d the judgment noted. If brand names for similar treatments are confusingly close, this opens the door to potentially dangerous misunderstandings.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s ruling is consistent with precedent. In 2012, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on a similar dispute – also involving Adcock Ingram and Cipla – regarding the names ZEMAX and ZETOMAX. In that decision, the court underscored the importance of protecting patients from confusion, stating: \u201cThe patient is the ultimate consumer whose wishes may not be disregarded and who has the right to participate in any decision concerning their health and treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n
The recent ruling reinforces a critical message to pharmaceutical companies: choosing a medicine name is not merely a branding exercise – it carries significant legal and ethical responsibilities. Care must be taken to avoid names that could result in confusion, especially when medicines are prescribed for the same condition or therapeutic use.<\/p>\n