Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly: Cymbalta leavepiece missing generic name next to brand (AUTH/1964/2/07, AUTH/1965/2/07)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/1964/2/07 and AUTH/1965/2/07
Complainant	General practitioner
Companies	Boehringer Ingelheim Limited; Eli Lilly and Company Limited
Material	Cymbalta (duloxetine) leavepiece, ref CYM637
Main issue	Non-proprietary name not immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name
Applicable Code year	2006
Breach clauses	Clause 4.3
Complaint received	20 February 2007 (site); 21 February 2007 (report text)
Completed	14 March 2007 (site); case completion dates: 15 March 2007 (AUTH/1965/2/07) and 16 March 2007 (AUTH/1964/2/07)
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions: Not stated
Published	May 2007 Code of Practice Review

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 complained about a Cymbalta (duloxetine) promotional leavepiece (ref CYM637) issued by Boehringer Ingelheim Limited and Eli Lilly and Company Limited.
The leavepiece was a single sheet: promotional messages on the front; prescribing information on the reverse.
The complaint alleged the non-proprietary name was not immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name.
The Authority asked the companies to respond in relation to Clause 4.3.
Both companies accepted the non-proprietary name was not immediately adjacent to the most prominent brand name display, apologised, and said they would endeavour to ensure it was not repeated.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel noted the brand name “Cymbalta” appeared prominently at the top of the front page and as a logo at the bottom.
Although intervening text referred to “Cymbalta (duloxetine)”, the non-proprietary name did not appear immediately adjacent to the most prominent display of the brand name.
Breach of Clause 4.3 was ruled (as acknowledged by the companies).

🔒

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