AUTH/2329/7/10: Astellas Pharma v Genus — Eczmol journal advertisement (Clause 9.4 imitation) — No breach

📅 2010 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

Case numberAUTH/2329/7/10
PartiesAstellas Pharma Europe Ltd v Genus Pharmaceuticals Ltd
MaterialJournal advertisement for Eczmol (ref ECZ0110659)
Product(s)Eczmol (chlorhexidine gluconate cream); Locoid (hydrocortisone-17-butyrate)
Main allegationImitation of devices/copy/slogan/layout likely to mislead or confuse (interchangeability risk)
Clause(s) citedClause 9.4
Applicable Code year2008
Complaint received02 July 2010
Case completed09 August 2010
AppealNo appeal
DecisionNo breach of the Code (No breach of Clause 9.4)

Download the full case report (PDF)


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
📋

What happened

  • Astellas complained about a Genus journal advertisement for Eczmol (chlorhexidine gluconate cream), an antimicrobial emollient/soap substitute for dry and pruritic skin conditions including eczema and dermatitis.
  • Astellas marketed Locoid (hydrocortisone-17-butyrate), a topical corticosteroid for steroid responsive conditions such as eczema, dermatitis and psoriasis.
  • Astellas alleged the Eczmol ad imitated Locoid ads in overall copy, tagline and layout, including: a gentle animal with a shadow of a strong animal; the strapline “Gentle yet strong” (said to invert “Strong but gentle”); two-tone purple background; and similar positioning of elements.
  • Astellas argued the same audience would see both ads and could be misled into thinking the products were interchangeable, with potential public health consequences.
  • Genus denied imitation, stating its concept was developed independently (September–October 2009) and was conceptually/visually different; it also argued the products were in different therapeutic classes and confusion was unlikely among health professionals.
⚖️

Outcome

  • No breach of the Code was ruled.
  • No breach of Clause 9.4 (imitation likely to mislead or confuse).
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training