Parke Davis had approached the commission against an advertisement by USV Ltd in which the latter had claimed that `Abdec' was a misnomer as it did not contain vitamin E.

Discharging the petition, MRTPC said styling the name of Parke Davis' drug as a misnomer could not be considered as disparagement when the drug actually did not contain vitamin E.

``If the product does not contain vitamin E though it is designed to convey by its name that it does contain vitamin E, styling the name of the product as a misnomer cannot be said to be with any malicious intention,'' MRTPC chairman AN Divecha and member RK Anand said in an order.

Observing that the statement made by USV about Abdec could not be said to be false, the commission said USV had not indulged in any unfair orrestrictive trade practice. The division bench said Parke Davis named its multi-vitamin drops keeping in mind that it contains all vitamins from `A' to `D' and letter `E' appeared to have been added presumably because it wanted to create the impression that it contained vitamin E as well.

USV in an advertisement, circulated among medical practitioners, had included a comparative chart where it had shown that its own drug Vi-Syneral contained vitamin E while Parke Davis' drug Abdec was a misnomer as it did not contain vitamin E. Parke Davis in its application claimed that the advertisement disparaged its product.

However, since the advertisement was meant for private circulation among medical practitioners, any doctor would certainly know whether it contained the vitamins as mentioned and accordingly prescribe it for vitamin deficiency, especially to children. MRTPC also said Parke Davis had not been able to show what loss it had suffered on account of such alleged disparagement. ``It is not Parke Davis'case that, because of the advertising material circulated among medical practitioners, sales of Abdec had dwindled,'' it said.