MSD held responsible for third‑party email banner missing generic name (Maxalt) – AUTH/1795/2/06 | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1795/2/06
Parties	General Practitioner v Merck Sharp & Dohme
Material	eMIMS email promoting an online presentation/edetail for Maxalt (rizatriptan)
Main issue	Most prominent “Maxalt” in banner not accompanied by non-proprietary name immediately adjacent
Third-party involvement	Agency and publications company distributed email; publications company added standard intro/banner without MSD’s knowledge
Applicable Code year	2003 (case considered under 2006 Code; no difference for Clause 4.3)
Breach	Clause 4.3
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	05/06 February 2006 (reported as 6 February 2006 in the report)
Case completed	05/06 March 2006 (reported as 6 March 2006 in the report)
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A general practitioner received an email from eMIMS, marked “In association with MSD”, promoting an online presentation/edetail about Maxalt (rizatriptan).
The top banner read “eMIMS MAXALT Presentation: appropriate use in migraine”.
The complainant alleged the most prominent use of “Maxalt” (in the banner) was not accompanied by the non-proprietary name.
MSD said distribution was arranged via an agency and a publications company; MSD approved its own content (the main body) but did not know the publications company would add an introductory section (including the banner) and had not seen the final email.
The Panel considered the email was arranged on MSD’s behalf and promoted MSD’s product, so MSD was responsible for the whole email.

⚖️

⌄

Breach ruled: the non-proprietary name did not appear immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name in the banner.
Clause breached: Clause 4.3.
No appeal.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access