AUTH/2075/12/07: GP v Merck Sharp & Dohme — Arcoxia USB promotional aid packaging (no approved name) — No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2075/12/07
Complainant	General practitioner
Company	Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited
Product	Arcoxia (etoricoxib)
Material	USB flash drive promotional aid and its packaging
Main issue	Packaging displayed brand name “Arcoxia” without the approved name “etoricoxib”
Clauses considered	4.3, 9.1, 18.3 (Panel also referenced 4.1)
Outcome	No breach of the Code
Complaint received	11 December 2007
Case completed	25 January 2008
Applicable Code year	2006
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 requested and received an Arcoxia (etoricoxib) USB flash drive promotional aid from Merck Sharp & Dohme.
The outer packaging had “Arcoxia” printed four times but did not mention the approved (non-proprietary) name “etoricoxib”.
The GP alleged the packaging was clearly promotional and the most prominent brand name should be accompanied by the approved name.
The PMCPA asked the company to respond in relation to Clauses 4.3, 9.1 and 18.3 of the Code.
MSD argued the promotional aid comprised the USB drive and its box (with a window showing the USB), and that Clause 18.3 allowed use of the brand name alone; including both brand and non-proprietary names would not be permitted for a promotional aid and would also trigger prescribing information requirements.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel accepted that the USB flash drive together with its packaging comprised the promotional aid.
The Panel found it acceptable for a promotional aid to include only the brand name; including the non-proprietary name would trigger prescribing information requirements.
The Panel ruled there was no need to include prescribing information and that high standards had been maintained.

🔒

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