IBJNews

Lilly files suit over flea medication sales from Australia

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. is suing an Australian veterinary clinic for allegedly reselling its flea medication for dogs without the Indianapolis pharmaceutical firm’s permission.

The company accuses Yanchep Veterinary Clinic of infringing on the Comfortis trademark by marketing the Australian version of the pet medication online to U.S. consumers, violating Food and Drug Administration regulations.

Lilly typically goes to great lengths to protect patents and trademarks to its human medications, particularly its best sellers that have annual sales of more than $1 billion.

But products from Lilly’s animal health unit, Greenfield-based Elanco, had combined sales last year of nearly $1.4 billion—a 15-percent increase from 2009. Specifically, sales of Comfortis leaped 69 percent during the same time, according to the company’s latest annual report.

Lilly said in its Nov. 4 complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis that it has sold millions of dollars woth of Comfortis throughout the United States and has spent millions more to advertise and promote the pet medicine.

The defendant's "sale in the United States of Australian Comfortis is a deliberate, intentional and willful attempt to injure Lilly’s business … and to interfere with Lilly’s business relationships with its veterinarians and clients in the United States,” the company charged in its suit.

Lilly wants the veterinary clinic to pay it all profits from the Comfortis sales, and to pay it $100,000 for each of the five infringing websites the clinic used to sell Comfortis online.

The company also is requesting the clinic send a letter—the content of which must be approved by Lilly—to every U.S. customer who purchased Australian Comfortis, stating that the product must not be used and should be returned to the clinic, at its expense, for a full refund.

Australian Comfortis is not intended to be sold in the United States because it does not follow several FDA guidelines, the suit said.

The foreign flea killer, for instance, does not require a prescription from a veterinarian, does not include a “Not for Human Use” warning and does not contain a complete list of potential reactions and side effects.

Further, Australian Comfortis lists contact information for poison control centers in Australia and New Zealand, provides a different temperature storage range than its U.S. counterpart, and comes in various dosages that are based on a pet’s weight in kilograms rather than pounds.

Lilly does not reveal in its suit how it discovered the potential infringement. But the company sent a letter in March 2010 to the clinic requesting that it quit selling, shipping or distributing Australian Comfortis in the United States.

The following month, an owner responded via e-mail that the clinic had indeed stopped selling and shipping the medication overseas.

Yet, early this year, Lilly said it discovered that the clinic had resumed selling Comfortis in the United States.

“Defendants have not stopped their renewed sale of Australian Comfortis into the U.S. and have, in fact, increased their advertising to U.S. consumers through infringing domain names incorporating the Comfortis mark,” it said.
 
Lilly’s Elanco division launched Comfortis in 2007.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ELI L:ILLY IS GREEDY
    let me tell you what an extremely greedy company Eli Lilly is. They produce a drug called Zyprexa. This drug is an extremely good drug for people who suffer major mental disorders. It just went out of patent in November of 2011, despite Lilly spending millions of dollars trying to fight the expiration of the patent. That is because Lilly makes BILLIONS of dollars a year on this drug.It is extremely expensive.When a drug loses its patent right it may then be produced in generic by the many pill mills that put out generic drugs. However-the company that invented the drug-in this case-Lilly-has the right to produce and sell the generic for the first month it comes out of patent. Lilly has done so and priced the generic at almost TWICE the cost of the brand. They are aware that many if not all health insurances have a mandatory generic policy.To simplify- depending on the prescription- the example I can give is that a one month supply of this drug can cost $862.00 Lilly is marketing the generic for $1450.00-knowing that insurance companies will be forced to eat it on this due to their mandatory generic policies. Eli Lilly also created Prozac- a wonder drug for many-even some dogs(!)- but fought it all the way up the court system to maintain the sole right to make and sell that drug too. Big Pharma has deep pockets-its possible that they may be able to block the sale of affordable comfortis via mail.
  • Sale of Comfortis
    I think Lilly it just trying to be greedy. But what the heck, it's the American way. Most of the other countries use the metric system and if you aren't smart enough to convert kilograms to pounds then maybe you aren't intelligent enough to own a dog. The Australian folks were making it affordable to those of us who have multiple animals because once the American veterinarians buy it and put their markup on it most of us cannot afford it.
  • Veterinary drug diversion
    This whole business of veterinarians diverting drugs like Comfortis for resale outside normal channels is a disturbing problem. As a vet myself, I know times are tough, but you can't just go around making up rules as you go along, especially when your actions may threaten the safety of your patients. Lilly has every right to protect their product sales, and to protect consumers of their products.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

    Subscribe to IBJ
    ADVERTISEMENT