Brintellix won FDA approval on September 30, 2013. [1] By May 2016, the FDA had logged 55 cases of name confusion between Brintellix and Brilinta. [2] On May 2, 2016, Takeda and Lundbeck announced a new name: Trintellix. [3] That is 945 days from approval to rename (our calculation).
A patent ends on a fixed date. A brand name has no fixed end date in the Lanham Act provision we reviewed. The statute lets a challenger petition to cancel a mark “at any time” if the mark becomes the generic name for the goods. [4] A drug name is therefore an IP asset with its own clock and its own gatekeepers.
This guide follows a drug name from the first INN request to the courtroom. We cover who assigns nonproprietary names, how the FDA and the EMA review brand names, what courts decided in drug-name disputes, and what happened in documented renames. We also add original analysis: a collision taxonomy, a rename-interval table, a stage calendar, and a scenario model of a failed name review. DrugPatentWatch tracks the patent and exclusivity data that sit next to these names. We note below where that matters.
What Is Pharmaceutical Drug Naming, and Who Controls Each Name?
A drug has a nonproprietary name that belongs to the public and a proprietary name that a company owns. A biologic also carries a four-letter suffix. Different bodies control each name, and each body runs its own clock.
Definitions: INN, USAN, Proprietary Name, and Biologic Proper Name
INN (International Nonproprietary Name): the WHO name for a single, well-defined substance. WHO calls each INN “public property.” [5]
USAN (United States Adopted Name): the US nonproprietary name. The USAN Council assigns it during clinical development, and the AMA hosts the program secretariat. [6]
Proprietary name: the brand name. FDA guidance defines it as “The trademark or brand name.” The EMA calls the same thing an “invented name.” [7] [8]
Biologic proper name: the core name plus a four-letter suffix, such as the “-sndz” in filgrastim-sndz. [9] [10]
Why Drug Naming Belongs in the IP Function
Patents have expiration dates. Exclusivities have expiration dates. Names have review clocks, objection periods, and validity windows. A team that tracks only patent dates misses the name events that change when and how a product reaches the market.
A rename also splits a product’s record. Brintellix and Trintellix are two brand names for one ingredient, vortioxetine. [3] DrugPatentWatch indexes drugs by brand name and by active ingredient, so an ingredient search is the safer way to follow a renamed product.
What the Data Shows: Nine Findings on Drug Naming
The table lists nine findings that a reader can quote on their own. Documented facts carry a source. Figures we calculated are marked as analysis.
#
Finding
Type
Source
1
The WHO INN list holds about 7,000 names and grows by roughly 120 to 150 names a year. That is about 1.7% to 2.1% annual growth.
Documented count; growth rate is analysis
[5]
2
FDA’s review goal is 90 days for NDA and BLA proprietary names and 180 days for IND-phase names.
Documented (PDUFA IV goal dates)
[7]
3
CDER granted 74% of the proprietary names it evaluated from October 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014. Rejection rates were above 50% a few years earlier.
Documented (trade press)
[11]
4
The EMA accepts an invented name for 3 years from CHMP adoption, with one 1-year extension. It states that trademark review is outside its remit.
Documented
[8]
5
Brintellix took 945 days from approval to rename. The FDA recorded 55 confusion cases, about 1.8 per month over that span.
Dates and count documented; rate is analysis
[1] [2] [3]
6
Three documented US renames took 398, 945, and about 1,584 days from approval.
Analysis
[12] [1] [13] [14]
7
FDA’s biologic suffix has four lowercase letters, at least three of them different. A sponsor may propose up to 10.
Documented (law-firm summary of the 2017 guidance)
[9]
8
One ingredient, semaglutide, carries three US brands approved over 1,277 days (3.5 years).
Dates documented; interval is analysis
[15] [16] [17]
9
In the Third Circuit, confusion between drug names is judged against “the least sophisticated consumer in the class” when both professionals and the public matter.
Documented (court opinion)
[18]
How Are Nonproprietary Names Assigned? WHO INN and USAN Explained
How Does the WHO INN Process Work?
The World Health Assembly started the INN system in 1950 through resolution WHA3.11. The first INN list appeared in 1953. [5]
A manufacturer or inventor submits a request. The WHO Secretariat checks the proposed name against published INNs and existing names. Experts must agree on the name. WHO then publishes it with a 4-month objection period. If nobody objects, it becomes a recommended INN. [5]
The program names only single, well-defined substances. It does not name mixtures, herbal substances, or homeopathic products. [5]
How Does the USAN Council Work?
The USAN Council has five volunteer members, one from each program sponsor plus one member at large. The sponsors are the AMA, USP, APhA, and the FDA. [6]
A firm applies through the USAN portal. The substance must have entered clinical trials and must have an IND number. The application package includes a search for trademark and generic-name conflicts. [6]
Firms may apply in Phase 1, but many wait until Phase 2. Most want the name before Phase 3 ends. [6]
Three parties must accept a name: the sponsor, the USAN Council, and the INN Expert Group. After the sponsor accepts the Council’s choice, the USAN Program files the INN application for the firm. The INN experts then review the name for conflicts in other languages. The INN Expert Group decides at biannual meetings. [6]
The AMA page states that the FDA reviews trade names separately. [6] That separation matters. A USAN does not clear a brand name.
Can a Company Trademark an INN or Its Stem?
No. WHO says each INN is public property that anyone can use without restriction. It asks Member States to stop anyone from acquiring proprietary rights in INNs, including by registering them as trade names. [5]
What Does WHO Say About Trademarks Derived From INNs?
WHO states that trademarks should not be derived from INNs. It also states that meaningful INN stems should not appear in trademarks. [5]
A trademark owner can object during the 4-month window. WHO then tries to have the name withdrawn or reconsidered. The name does not become a recommended INN while the objection stands. [5]
Regulators apply the same rule from the other side. The FDA runs a “USAN stem search” as part of its safety screening of proposed brand names. [7] The EMA reviews a name when 50% or more of it is made up of INN parts. [8]
How Does the FDA Review a Proprietary Name?
The FDA reviews proposed brand names for medication-error risk and for promotional problems. The review runs on a PDUFA clock. It starts only when the submission is complete. [7]
What Does a Complete Name-Review Submission Contain?
The FDA guidance lists these parts. [7]
A header statement, such as “REQUEST FOR PROPRIETARY NAME REVIEW,” and FDA Form 1571 (IND) or 356h (NDA, ANDA, BLA).
The first-choice name and an optional alternate, the intended pronunciation, the derivation, and the meaning of any prefix or suffix.
Product information: proposed labeling, container labels, and packaging in color, or the dosage form, strengths, indication, route, and storage conditions if labeling does not yet exist.
Dispensing and delivery details, such as care settings and any device. Applicant assessments of the name are optional.
How Long Does FDA Proprietary Name Review Take?
The PDUFA IV goal is review within 180 days of a complete IND-phase submission and within 90 days of a complete NDA, BLA, or supplement submission. ANDA submissions are not subject to these goals. [7]
The PDUFA goals document for fiscal years 2013 to 2017 says FDA aims to meet these dates for 90% of submissions. It also says sponsors may submit names as early as the end of Phase 2. [19] We did not verify the goal dates in later PDUFA cycles.
What Happens After an Unacceptable Name Finding?
A request for an alternate name or for reconsideration starts a new review clock. The same 180-day or 90-day goal applies. [7] The FY2013 to FY2017 goals document gives the sponsor 60 days to send a written rebuttal or ask for a meeting. [19]
How Often Does the FDA Reject Proposed Drug Names?
CDER granted 74% of the names it evaluated between October 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. A January 2015 Pink Sheet report said rejection rates were over 50% a few years before. [11] The text we could access does not name the first year of that comparison. We found no newer rate in a primary FDA source.
What Does the FDA Test in a Proposed Name?
The safety review includes a preliminary screen for common errors, a USAN stem search, and an orthographic and phonological similarity assessment. The FDA also checks whether a name looks or sounds like other medical terms or diagnostic tests. [7]
The promotional review asks whether a name overstates efficacy, minimizes risk, broadens the indication, or makes unsubstantiated superiority claims. The guidance also flags “fanciful” names that mislead by implying unique effectiveness or composition. [7]
What Is POCA, and How Does the FDA Score Name Similarity?
POCA is the FDA’s Phonetic and Orthographic Computer Analysis software. It measures how similar two drug names look and sound. The FDA announced changes to POCA in September 2020. The new version is cloud-based and removes the download and access-request steps. [20]
What Are the FDA’s Rules for Nonprescription Drug Names?
On December 8, 2020, the FDA issued a final guidance on best practices for prescription names and a draft guidance for nonprescription names. [20] The draft recommends several limits. [21]
Do not use a brand name extension to launch a new nonprescription product.
Do not use a name identical or nearly identical to a name used for the product in another market.
Do not put the sponsor’s name in the product name.
Avoid symbols, dose designations, and medical abbreviations. The draft cites sequential names such as “ABCName1” and “ABCName2” as a source of similar names.
EMA vs. FDA: How Do the Two Name Reviews Compare?
Comparison Table: FDA, EMA, WHO INN, and USAN Name Reviews
Body
What it names
Clock or window
Trademark role
Source
WHO INN
Nonproprietary name
4-month objection period after publication
INNs are public property and may not be registered as trademarks
[5]
USAN Council
US nonproprietary name
Assigned during clinical trials; many sponsors apply in Phase 2
Application includes a trademark and generic-name conflict search; FDA reviews trade names separately
[6]
FDA
Proprietary name
180 days (IND phase) or 90 days (NDA/BLA) from a complete submission
Guidance describes safety and promotional criteria; it does not describe a trademark clearance
[7]
EMA Name Review Group
Invented name
Accepted for 3 years from CHMP adoption, plus one 1-year extension
Trademark review is outside EMA’s remit
[8]
What Is the EMA’s Three-Plus-One-Year Validity Window?
The EMA’s Name Review Group considers an invented name acceptable for 3 years from the CHMP adoption date. The applicant can extend that once, for one more year. A reconfirmation also adds one year and can be granted once. A name in an ongoing marketing authorization application does not expire during the procedure. [8]
The guideline is EMA/CHMP/287710/2014. Revision 7 was first published on December 15, 2023. The prior version, Revision 6, had a legal effective date of January 1, 2015. [22]
What the EMA Does Not Check: Trademark Rights
Section 1 of the guideline states: “The review of trade marks is outside the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) remit.” The applicant must check trademarks with the relevant trademark office. [8] A name can pass the Name Review Group and still lose a trademark dispute.
Which EMA Style Rules Differ From FDA Practice?
The EMA guideline adds several explicit style rules. [8]
A name should not consist wholly of initial letters or code numbers, and it should not include punctuation (section 4.1.16).
Consecutive vowels or consonants, especially at the start, should be avoided (section 4.1.12).
The NRG may reject a name that is too long for very small containers (section 4.1.17).
A name should not carry misleading therapeutic connotations (section 4.1.7) and should not be promotional (section 4.1.8).
Trademark Law and Drug Names: What Did the Courts Decide?
Kos v. Andrx: Advicor vs. Altocor (3d Cir. 2004)
On May 24, 2004, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction in Kos Pharmaceuticals v. Andrx Corp. Kos sold Advicor, a combination of lovastatin and extended-release niacin. Andrx sold Altocor, extended-release lovastatin only. The court sent the case back with instructions to enter an injunction on an expedited basis. [18]
The court found two legal errors. The district court treated misdispensing as the only relevant confusion. It also did not properly analyze and weigh the Lapp factors. [18] The court held that Kos was entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. [18]
The Least-Sophisticated-Consumer Rule for Drug Names
The court wrote that “Prevention of confusion and mistakes in medicines is too vital to be trifled with.” It said the standard of care “will be equal to that of the least sophisticated consumer in the class” when both professionals and the public are relevant. [18]
The opinion did not adopt a separate lower standard of proof for drugs. It kept “likelihood of confusion” as the test. [18] For a sponsor, the result is practical: a prescriber’s expertise does not end the confusion analysis.
Eli Lilly v. Natural Answers: Prozac vs. Herbrozac (7th Cir. 2000)
Lilly owns the Prozac mark. Natural Answers sold an herbal mood supplement called Herbrozac and also put “Prozac” in its website meta tags. On November 21, 2000, the Seventh Circuit held that using a third party’s mark as a meta tag can show intent to cause confusion. [23]
The case shows a second naming risk. A competitor can build a look-alike on a famous brand, and search-engine tactics can count as evidence of intent. [23]
When Does a Drug Brand Become Generic? The Aspirin Case
In Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1921), Judge Learned Hand addressed “Aspirin” after Bayer’s acetyl salicylic acid patent expired in 1917. The court split the market by buyer type. [24]
Among consumers, the court said the name “has gone into the public domain.” Bayer had not advertised to consumers or put its name on packages. For manufacturing chemists, physicians, and retail druggists, “Aspirin” still identified Bayer. [24]
The loss did not end Bayer’s business. Sarpatwari and Kesselheim report that Bayer lost its Aspirin trademark in the US but still holds about a 25% US aspirin market share and charges over three times the per-pill price of store brands. [25]
The Statutory Test for Genericness
Under 15 U.S.C. 1064(3), the test is the primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public, “rather than purchaser motivation.” A mark is not generic solely because it also identifies a unique product. [4]
Brintellix to Trintellix: A Documented Rename Timeline
Brintellix Timeline From Approval to Rename
Date
Event
Days from approval (analysis)
Source
Sept. 30, 2013
FDA approves Brintellix (vortioxetine)
0
[1]
July 30, 2015
FDA issues original warning on Brintellix and Brilinta name confusion
668
[2]
May 2, 2016
FDA updates its warning to 55 total cases; Takeda and Lundbeck announce Trintellix
945
[2] [3]
June 2016
Trintellix expected to ship with a new NDC number; label and packaging otherwise unchanged
About 975
[2]
What Do 55 Confusion Reports Mean?
The FDA’s May 2016 update added five cases to reach 55 since approval. That implies 50 cases in the earlier review. [2] Spread over 945 days, 55 cases is about 1.8 per month. This is our calculation. It is a reporting rate, not an error rate, because the denominator is unknown.
Two cases show the clinical risk. One patient on Brilinta had bleeding and a partially collapsed lung after a lung biopsy. Staff had recorded the drug as Brintellix, so they did not know the patient was on an antiplatelet drug. In another case, a geriatric patient received Brintellix instead of Brilinta and fell after nine days. [2]
Thomas Harris, Takeda’s vice president of global regulatory affairs, said: “Takeda and Lundbeck then proactively worked with the FDA and decided to change the name of our product.” [3]
How a Rename Changes Patent and Exclusivity Research
A patent claim names a compound or a method. It does not name a brand. A rename leaves the patents, the NDA, and the exclusivity dates unchanged. It changes the search term. An analyst who searches “Brintellix” after 2016 misses the product. An ingredient search for vortioxetine finds both names. This is an analytical point, not a documented market event.
Why Do Companies Rename Drugs After Approval? Four Cases Compared
Rename Intervals: Kapidex, Brintellix, and Reminyl
We calculated the time from FDA approval to rename for the three US cases where we found both dates in a source.
Original name
New name
Confused with
Approval
Rename
Days (analysis)
Source
Kapidex
Dexilant
Casodex, Kadian
Jan. 30, 2009
Mar. 4, 2010
398
[12]
Brintellix
Trintellix
Brilinta
Sept. 30, 2013
May 2, 2016
945
[1] [3]
Reminyl
Razadyne
Amaryl
Feb. 28, 2001
July 2005 (month only; we used July 1)
About 1,584
[13] [14]
The range is 398 to about 1,584 days. The median of the three is 945 days. With only three data points, we treat this as an illustration, not a forecast.
Pharmacy Times lists three more name changes. AstraZeneca’s Losec became Prilosec in the US after confusion with Lasix. Celebra became Celebrex after a pharmacy professor raised a concern about Celexa and the FDA agreed. Omacor became Lovaza in 2007 after limited reports of errors with Amicar. [14] That source gives no approval-to-rename dates for these three, so we did not calculate intervals.
Original Taxonomy: Four Collision Types in Drug Names
We propose this four-type taxonomy. It is our own framework, not an established industry classification. Each type has a gatekeeper and a documented example.
Collision type
What collides
Main gatekeeper
Documented example
Stem collision
The brand name overlaps an INN or USAN stem or part
WHO, USAN Council, FDA stem search, EMA 50% rule
WHO bars meaningful INN stems in trademarks [5]; EMA reviews names with 50% or more INN parts [8]
Error collision
The name looks or sounds like another drug name
FDA similarity review, POCA, post-market reporting
Brintellix and Brilinta [2]; Reminyl and Amaryl [14]
Claim collision
The name implies efficacy, safety, or an indication the label does not support
FDA promotional review, EMA sections 4.1.7 and 4.1.8
FDA flags names that overstate efficacy or minimize risk [7]
Rights collision
The name conflicts with another party’s trademark
Courts and trademark offices, not the EMA
Kos v. Andrx [18]; Lilly v. Natural Answers [23]
The taxonomy shows one structural point. The first three collisions are caught by regulators before approval, although the Brintellix case shows they can still escape review. The fourth is not a regulatory check at all. A sponsor who relies on a regulator’s acceptance for trademark safety has no documented basis for that reliance in the EMA guideline. [8]
FDA Name Differentiation Project and Tall Man Lettering
For drugs already on the market, the FDA runs the Name Differentiation Project. It started in 2001 and reviews postmarketing reports of confusion between look-alike names. The FDA decides whether tall man lettering should separate a pair. Tall man lettering capitalizes the letters that differ, as in predniSONE and prednisoLONE or vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine. [26]
How Do Biologic Names Differ? Four-Letter Suffixes and Biosimilars
What Is the FDA’s 2017 Biologic Suffix Rule?
The FDA issued its final guidance, Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, on January 12, 2017. A biologic’s nonproprietary name combines a core name with a four-letter suffix that has no inherent meaning. The suffix uses four lowercase letters, at least three of them different, and joins the core name with a hyphen. A sponsor may propose up to 10 suffixes in ranked order. [9]
The stated reasons are clear identification, prevention of unintended substitution, faster tracing of complaints, and accurate pharmacovigilance in billing and claims records. [9] FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb later described the suffixes as “a critical component of the FDA’s ability to track adverse events to a specific biological product and manufacturer.” [27]
What Changed for Biologic Names in 2019?
In March 2019, the FDA issued a draft update to the naming guidance. [28] The agency said it would not add suffixes retroactively to previously approved biologics. The convention applies at licensure. [29]
The draft also states that transition products, such as insulins, are not meant to receive suffixes. Vaccines were under reconsideration for whether the convention should apply at all. [29] [27] A biosimilar later found interchangeable keeps its original name, including the suffix. [27]
Why Did the 2019 Update Matter for Existing Reference Biologics?
The 2017 guidance said existing biologics whose names did not meet the new rule would need name changes. [9] The 2019 draft removed that burden for older products. The FDA’s draft said previously approved names “need not be revised in order to accomplish the objectives of the naming convention.” [29] The result is a split: older reference products often carry no suffix, and newer products carry one.
Zarxio and filgrastim-sndz: A Worked Example
Zarxio is filgrastim-sndz and is marketed by Sandoz. The reference product, Neupogen, was named filgrastim with no suffix. A June 2016 article noted that suffixes could resemble a marketer’s name and that the FDA had not finalized its rule. [10] The example shows the two-name structure: a shared core name for the molecule and a suffix that separates the products.
What Do Biologic Suffixes Mean for Biosimilar Launch Tracking?
A suffix is a product-level identifier. It does not reveal patent status or exclusivity. A reference biologic’s dates still come from the Purple Book, the patent record, and the litigation docket. The suffix helps an analyst separate a biosimilar from its reference product in claims and safety data. This is our analytical reading of the FDA’s stated rationale. [9]
One Molecule, Three Brands: The Semaglutide Naming Strategy
Semaglutide Brand Timeline
Brand
FDA approval
Indication at approval
Days since Ozempic (analysis)
Source
Ozempic (injection)
Dec. 5, 2017
Type 2 diabetes in adults
0
[15]
Rybelsus (tablets)
Sept. 20, 2019
Glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes
654
[16]
Wegovy (injection, 2.4 mg weekly)
June 4, 2021
Chronic weight management
1,277
[17]
What Does the Semaglutide Pattern Show?
Novo Nordisk holds all three approvals. [15] [16] [17] The nonproprietary name is the same across the three. Each brand maps to a different product and indication at approval.
We read the pattern this way: the brand name tells a prescriber, a payer, and a pharmacy which label applies, while the INN tells them which molecule. The sources we reviewed do not state Novo Nordisk’s reasons for its brand architecture. Treat motive as an open question.
Drugs.com also lists a February 4, 2026 entry for an “Ozempic pill,” a tablet formulation. [15] We did not check that entry against the FDA label. If it holds, it shows that brand architecture can change after launch, and that a name-based search for “Rybelsus” alone would miss part of the franchise.
Do Drugs Carry Different Names in Different Countries?
Pharmacia & Upjohn v. Paranova (C-379/97): Can an Importer Swap the Brand?
Yes, in narrow cases. On October 12, 1999, the Court of Justice ruled on Clindamycin, which Pharmacia sold under a different trademark in Denmark, France, and Greece. Paranova bought the product abroad and sold it in Denmark under the Danish mark. [30]
The court held that the proprietor can oppose replacement of the mark unless the opposition contributes to artificial partitioning of markets. The proprietor cannot oppose when replacement is objectively necessary to market the product in the importing state. Necessity fails when the importer only wants a commercial advantage. [30]
The principle ties to the repackaging line of cases. Notice and a sample of the modified packaging are among the requirements for parallel importers in that line. [31] A brand sold under different names in different member states gives parallel traders a legal reason to relabel, and gives the proprietor a reason to litigate.
Why Does Prozac Have Other Names Outside the US?
Sarpatwari and Kesselheim note that Prozac is marketed as Erocap, Lorien, Lovan, and Zactin outside the US. [25] They do not explain the reasons for each name. Taken with Pharmacia v. Paranova, the example shows that one INN can carry several brands across a global launch. Each brand needs its own clearance.
Should Generics Be Allowed to Use Brand Names?
Sarpatwari and Kesselheim proposed legislation that would let generic products adopt the brand names of their innovator counterparts. They argue it would build confidence in generic equivalence and cut the cost of running two names for one drug. [25]
Pharmaceutical manufacturers spend at least US$30 billion a year marketing brand awareness to US physicians and patients. In a 2003 analysis of 25,238 outpatient visits to 1,342 US physicians, multisource drugs were prescribed by brand name at a 79% median frequency. (Sarpatwari & Kesselheim, 2016) [25]
The proposal is a policy argument, not current law. It also shows why a brand name keeps commercial value after patents end.
Naming Timeline: When Should a Sponsor Start?
Stage Calendar for Name Decisions
Development stage
Name event
Source
Phase 1 or Phase 2
USAN application, which must include an IND number and a trademark and generic-name conflict search
[6]
As early as end of Phase 2
FDA IND-phase proprietary name review (180-day goal)
[19] [7]
NDA or BLA submission
FDA proprietary name review (90-day goal)
[7]
EU centralised procedure
NRG acceptance valid for 3 years from CHMP adoption, plus one 1-year extension
[8]
Scenario Analysis: What Happens If the First Two Names Fail?
This scenario is our analysis. It uses the FDA’s 90-day NDA goal and assumes three conditions: the sponsor resubmits at once after each unacceptable finding, the FDA meets its goal date each time, and no other delay occurs.
One acceptable name on the first try: 90 days.
First name unacceptable, alternate accepted: 90 + 90 = 180 days.
Two unacceptable names, third accepted: 90 + 90 + 90 = 270 days.
Name accepted, then renamed after approval (Brintellix pattern): add 945 days in the post-approval phase.
The guidance supports the 90-day restart because a request for an alternate name starts a new review clock. [7] The goal dates are targets and not guarantees. The guidance lets a sponsor include an optional alternate name in the first submission. [7] The text we read does not say whether that shortens the path.
What Does This Mean for Brand Manufacturers, Generic Developers, and CI Teams?
What This Means for Brand Manufacturers
Run trademark clearance in parallel with regulatory review. The EMA says trademark checks are the applicant’s job. [8] Courts treat prescriber expertise as one factor and not as a defense. [18] Plan for a post-approval rename as a real event. Three documented US renames fell between 398 and about 1,584 days after approval. [12] [1] [13]
What This Means for Generic and Biosimilar Developers
Generic developers use the nonproprietary name. ANDA submissions are outside the PDUFA proprietary-name goals. [7] Biosimilar developers must plan for the suffix. They may propose up to 10 four-letter options. [9] Watch the reference product’s naming status, because older reference biologics often carry no suffix while newer ones do. [29]
What This Means for Competitive Intelligence Teams
Track names as records with history. Link each brand name to its ingredient, its NDA or BLA, and its patents. DrugPatentWatch organizes patent and exclusivity data by drug, which gives an analyst the patent side of that link. The name side comes from FDA and EMA records.
Three name events deserve alerts: a USAN or INN publication, which signals a compound in clinical development [6] [5]; a post-approval rename [3]; and a new brand for an existing ingredient [17].
Methodology and Limitations
We reviewed regulator pages, guidance documents, court opinions or case summaries, and statutory text. We prefer primary sources. Where we cite a law-firm or trade-press summary, the reference list shows it. We relied on a law-firm summary for the January 2017 FDA biologic naming guidance, and on the Pink Sheet for the 74% grant rate.
We calculated day counts from the dates in the cited sources, using calendar days. For Reminyl, the source gives only the month of the rename, so we used July 1, 2005. We calculated the INN growth rate by dividing 120 and 150 by about 7,000. We included a rename case only if we found an approval date and a rename date in a source.
Limits apply. The rename sample has three cases. The FDA goal dates come from PDUFA IV and the FY2013 to FY2017 goals document. We did not verify them in later PDUFA cycles. We did not locate a finalized FDA update on interchangeable-biologic suffixes. The collision taxonomy is our framework. The Pink Sheet text we could read was incomplete, so we cannot date the “over 50%” rejection comparison.
Key Takeaways
A drug carries a public nonproprietary name and a company-owned brand name. WHO says INNs are public property and should not be trademarked. [5]
FDA name review runs 90 days for NDA and BLA names and 180 days for IND-phase names under PDUFA IV goals. [7]
The EMA accepts a name for 3 years plus one 1-year extension. It does not review trademarks. [8]
Brintellix took 945 days from approval to rename, with 55 reported confusion cases. [2] [3]
In the Third Circuit, drug-name confusion is judged against the least sophisticated consumer in the class. [18]
Biologic suffixes are four lowercase letters. The FDA chose not to add them retroactively in its 2019 draft. [9] [29]
One ingredient can carry several brands. Semaglutide has three US brands approved over 1,277 days. [15] [17]
A rename leaves patents and exclusivity unchanged but changes the search term. Search by ingredient as well as by brand.
FAQ: Drug Naming, Trademarks, and Biologic Suffixes
What Is the Difference Between an INN and a USAN?
An INN is the WHO’s international nonproprietary name. A USAN is the US name, assigned by the USAN Council. The sponsor, the Council, and the INN Expert Group must all accept a name, and the USAN Program files the INN application for the firm. [6]
Can a Sponsor Submit a Backup Brand Name to the FDA?
Yes. The submission can include a first-choice name and an optional alternate name. [7]
Why Did Bayer Lose Its Aspirin Trademark but Keep Selling Aspirin?
A 1921 court ruled that consumers treated “Aspirin” as the name of the drug itself. [24] Sarpatwari and Kesselheim report that Bayer still holds about a 25% US share at more than three times the per-pill price of store brands. [25]
Can a Generic Company Use the Brand Name?
Sarpatwari and Kesselheim propose legislation that would allow it, which implies that current law does not. The proposal is not law. [25]
Does a Renamed Drug Get a New NDC?
For Trintellix, the FDA said the drug would ship from June 2016 with a new NDC number. The label and packaging otherwise stayed the same. [2]
Can a Parallel Importer Replace a Drug’s Brand Name?
Only if replacement is objectively necessary to market the product in the importing state. A wish for commercial advantage is not enough. [30]
Do Vaccines Receive Four-Letter Suffixes?
In the March 2019 draft, the FDA was reconsidering whether vaccines should fall under the convention at all. [29] We did not find a final decision in the sources we reviewed.
What Is Tall Man Lettering, and Who Maintains the Pairs?
Tall man lettering capitalizes the letters that differ between look-alike names. The FDA’s Name Differentiation Project, started in 2001, decides when to use it. [26]
How Often Do Prescribers Block Generic Substitution?
In January 2009, 151,670 of 5.6 million prescription claims (2.7%) at a large pharmacy benefits manager were marked dispense as written. [25]
What Happens to a Biosimilar’s Name if It Becomes Interchangeable?
Under the March 2019 draft, a biosimilar later found interchangeable keeps its original nonproprietary name, including its suffix. [27]
References
Drugs.com. (n.d.). Trintellix (vortioxetine) FDA approval history. https://drugs.com/history/trintellix.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016, May 2). FDA Drug Safety Communication: Brintellix (vortioxetine) and Brilinta (ticagrelor) brand name confusion; update. https://fda.gov/media/97536/download
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. (2016, May 2). Brintellix (vortioxetine) renamed Trintellix (vortioxetine) in U.S. to avoid name confusion [News release]. https://www.takeda.com/en-us/newsroom/news-releases/2016/brintellix-vortioxetine-renamed-trintellix-vortioxetine-in-us-to-avoid-name-confusion/
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064 (cancellation of registration). Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064
World Health Organization. (2017, July 12). Guidance on the use of International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical substances [Web page]. https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standards/inn/guidance-on-inn
American Medical Association. (n.d.). Procedure for USAN name selection. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/united-states-adopted-names/procedure-usan-name-selection
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016, April). Contents of a complete submission for the evaluation of proprietary names: Guidance for industry. https://fda.gov/media/72144/download
European Medicines Agency. (2023). Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure, Revision 7 (EMA/CHMP/287710/2014). https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-acceptability-names-human-medicinal-products-processed-through-centralised-procedure-revision-7_en.pdf
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. (2017, January). What’s in a name? A four-letter suffix to be FDA compliant. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2017/1/whats-in-a-name-a-fourletter-suffix-to-be-fda-compliant
Barlas, S. (2016, June). Early biosimilars face hurdles to acceptance. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4894512
Pink Sheet. (2015, January 2). FDA rejecting fewer proprietary names. Citeline. https://insights.citeline.com/PS079808/FDA-Rejecting-Fewer-Proprietary-Names/
Drugs.com. (n.d.). Dexilant (dexlansoprazole) FDA approval history. https://www.drugs.com/history/dexilant.html
Alzheimer Research Forum. (2001). FDA approved Reminyl for the treatment of mild AD. https://alzforum.org/node/38535
Pharmacy Times. (n.d.). 5 notable drug name changes. https://pharmacytimes.com/view/5-notable-drug-name-changes
Drugs.com. (n.d.). Ozempic FDA approval history. https://www.drugs.com/history/ozempic
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019, September 20). FDA approves first oral GLP-1 treatment for type 2 diabetes [News release, reproduced by BioSpace]. https://www.biospace.com/fda-approves-first-oral-glp-1-treatment-for-type-2-diabetes
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2021, June 4). FDA approves new drug treatment for chronic weight management, first since 2014 [News release, reproduced by BioSpace]. https://www.biospace.com/fda-approves-new-drug-treatment-for-chronic-weight-management-first-since-2014
Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004). https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033977p.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). PDUFA reauthorization performance goals and procedures, fiscal years 2013 through 2017. https://fda.gov/media/81306/download
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020, December 8). FDA Brief: FDA provides guidances on proprietary naming of drugs, changes to naming analysis program. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-provides-guidances-proprietary-naming-drugs-changes-naming-analysis-program
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020, December). Best practices in developing proprietary names for human nonprescription drug products: Draft guidance. https://fda.gov/media/144257/download
European Medicines Agency. (n.d.). Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure [Web page]. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/guideline-acceptability-names-human-medicinal-products-processed-through-centralised-procedure
WilmerHale. (2001, April 2). Use of others’ trademarks as meta tags found to be intent to cause confusion in a trademark infringement case [Discussing Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., No. 00-1375 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2000)]. https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/use-of-others-trademarks-as-metatags-found-to-be-intent-to-cause-confusion-in-a-trademark-infringement-case-april-2-2001
Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). Harvard Law School, Berkman Klein Center. https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/bayer.htm
Sarpatwari, A., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2016). The case for reforming drug naming: Should brand name trademark protections expire upon generic entry? PLoS Medicine, 13(2), e1001955. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4747525/
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). FDA Name Differentiation Project. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/medication-errors-related-cder-regulated-drug-products/fda-name-differentiation-project
Davio, K. (2019, March 7). FDA releases guidance on biologic, biosimilar, and interchangeable biosimilar naming conventions. Center for Biosimilars. https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/news/fda-releases-guidance-on-biologic-biosimilar-and-interchangeable-biosimilar-naming-conventions
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019, March). Nonproprietary naming of biological products: Update. Guidance for industry (draft). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/nonproprietary-naming-biological-products-update-guidance-industry
Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. (2019, March 7). FDA reverses course, decides not to add suffixes to previously approved biologics. https://www.raps.org/resource/fda-reverses-course-decides-not-to-add-suffixes-t.html
CMS Law-Now. (n.d.). Exhaustion of trade mark rights: Pharmacia (Upjohn) and Paranova [Discussing Case C-379/97, Court of Justice, Oct. 12, 1999]. https://cms.law/en/gbr/legal-updates/exhaustion-of-trade-mark-rights-pharmacia-upjohn-and-paranova
Fieldfisher. (2018, May 29). Re-labelling permissible for pharmaceutical parallel imports, rules CJEU [Discussing Case C-642/16]. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/services/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-blog/re-labelling-permissible-for-pharmaceutical-parallel-imports-rules-cjeu
