• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

WHO Group Suggests New Name For Falsified Medicines, Dropping ‘Counterfeit’

28/11/2016 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 6 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

A widely representative World Health Organization technical working group has recommended new terminology for substandard or falsified medicines, after years of sharp disagreement among WHO members that led to the tongue-twister: “substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit” medical products. The working group recommends a simpler formula: kick out intellectual property rights by dropping the term “counterfeit” and just call the products “substandard and falsified.”

counterfeit drugsIf agreed by the larger WHO membership, this definition would be expected to end a long battle over the word “counterfeit,” which generally relates to trademark infringement in legal circles, not an area of expertise for the health body.

Some developing countries, such as India, have pointed out that keeping the word counterfeit in the description might lead to a confusion which could lead to arbitrary detention of generic medicines at borders.

The informal technical working group on draft working definitions of substandard/spurious/falsely-labelled/falsified/counterfeit (SSFFC) medical products met on 22 November.

The working group was chaired by Maximiliano Derecho from Argentina and included representatives from Brazil, China, India, the United States, Ireland, Indonesia, Tanzania, Nigeria, and Spain, according to the WHO.

According to the 23 November report [pdf] of the informal technical working group, the group sought to come up with a simplified common global understanding and provide clarity in what is meant by an SSFFC medical product.

“[T]he term ‘counterfeit’ is now usually used in the context of protection of intellectual property rights. Substandard and falsified products are a public health issue and the focus should be firmly on protecting public health,” according to Michael Deats, group lead for the SSFFC Surveillance and Monitoring, Safely and Vigilance, Essential Medicines and Health Products at the WHO,

“In addition, the terms spurious, and falsely labelled were dropped as falsified includes all variations of deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation,” he told Intellectual Property Watch.

The recommendation made by the informal technical working group were agreed at the plenary session of the 5th Member State Mechanism meeting held in Geneva last week, he said.

The recommendation will now go to the World Health Assembly in May 2017 via the Executive Board, said Deats. The Board next meets in January.

“The recommendation is a very positive step and enables a common global understanding of what constitutes a falsified or substandard medical product,” he said. [I]t does not affect National legislation but ensures that there is clarity at the International level amongst all Member States.”

SSFFC was used as a provisional description, until a simpler definition could be endorsed by the governing bodies of WHO, it said. Alternatives were nearly agreed more than a half-decade ago, but stalled acrimoniously despite research showing support then for changing “counterfeit” to “falsified” (IPW, WHO, 3 March 2011). Also, in the past, India in particular as a major generic drug producer has expressed concern about confusion in the public mind between counterfeits and legitimate generics.

The terms of reference of the Member State Mechanism on SSFFC medical products “expressly exclude the protection of intellectual property rights from the mandate of the mechanism, and therefore, the same criteria shall be used in the definitions to be used in its deliberation and work,” the report said.

“In the context of medical products, the term ‘falsified’ appears to adequately include all the various types of deliberate misrepresentation of a medical product in such a way which enables the specific exclusion of intellectual property rights,” the working group found.

William New contributed to this article.

 

Image Credits: drugs.com

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"WHO Group Suggests New Name For Falsified Medicines, Dropping ‘Counterfeit’" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: IP Policies, Language, Themes, Venues, Enforcement, English, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains, WHO

Trackbacks

  1. Links 29/11/2016: Core Apps Hackfest, MuckRock Goes FOSS | Techrights says:
    29/11/2016 at 9:40 pm

    […] WHO Group Suggests New Name For Falsified Medicines, Dropping ‘Counterfeit’ […]

    Reply
  2. Healthy Domains Revisited: the Pharmaceutical Industry | Electronic Frontier Foundation says:
    03/03/2017 at 9:05 pm

    […] year, when the World Health Organization (WHO) ruled that it would henceforth use the terminology substandard and falsified in its work on public health concerns around fraudulent medicines, signalling that the WHO has no […]

    Reply
  3. Healthy Domains Revisited: The Pharmaceutical Industry | ONE DOMAINS says:
    04/03/2017 at 3:22 am

    […] year, when the World Health Organization (WHO) ruled that it would henceforth use the terminology substandard and falsified in its work on public health concerns around fraudulent medicines, signalling that the WHO has no […]

    Reply
  4. Healthy Domains Revisited: The Pharmaceutical Industry | i Domain Appraisals says:
    04/03/2017 at 3:51 am

    […] year, when the World Health Organization (WHO) ruled that it would henceforth use the terminology substandard and falsified in its work on public health concerns around fraudulent medicines, signalling that the WHO has no […]

    Reply
  5. Healthy Domains Revisited: the Pharmaceutical Industry ~ MCJâ„¢ says:
    05/03/2017 at 1:36 pm

    […] year, when the World Health Organization (WHO) ruled that it would henceforth use the terminology substandard and falsified in its work on public health concerns around fraudulent medicines, signalling that the WHO has no […]

    Reply
  6. WHA Bans IP Reference In Substandard And Falsified Medicines - Intellectual Property Watch says:
    30/05/2017 at 7:43 pm

    […] is “the final step” in removing intellectual property from the name of medicines of this type (IPW, WHO, 28 November 2016), said Michael Deats, the group leader for Vigilance, […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.