Sanofi Medley has filed a lawsuit against Cimed, alleging that the Brazilian drugmaker copied the visual identity of its medicines and engaged in unfair competition at the point of sale.
The pharmaceutical company Sanofi Medley has filed a lawsuit against its competitor, Cimed, accusing it of copying its products Allegra, Novalgina, and Dorflex and of engaging in unfair competition at the point of sale. Sanofi wants Cimed to stop manufacturing and selling the products Alergomine and Nevralgex, and has filed a lawsuit requesting compensation for losses and damages.
In addition to these medications, the lawsuit also includes Cimed’s generic drugs containing dipyrone monohydrate, the best-selling analgesic and antipyretic in Brazil, and fexofenadine hydrochloride, one of the most widely used antihistamines for treating allergic rhinitis.
The case comes amid negotiations for the sale of Medley by the French company Sanofi, one of the pioneering brands in the Brazilian generic drug market. There are at least eight interested buyers, including Cimed, which was considering buying Medley until the end of last year, according to sources.
The parties have already presented their arguments in rebuttals and counter-rebuttals over the past few months, and the court decided at the end of last year to proceed with the action by hiring an expert for the case.
The case is before the 1st Business and Arbitration Disputes Court of the Central Civil Forum of São Paulo, presided over by Judge Gustavo Mazutti. At least since 2019, Sanofi Medley and Cimed have been at odds over alleged trade dress violations of Sanofi products. The issue also reached Brazil’s National Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (Conar) in 2024, without penalties being imposed on Cimed.
Trade dress is the combination of all the visual elements of a product, such as colors, shapes, and textures, that identify and distinguish it from others.
In its defense, Cimed’s lawyers allege that there is an “abusive and recurring strategy to limit, constrain, and hinder” the company’s growth in the Brazilian market. They also claim that Cimed’s products are distinct, with their own visual hierarchy, layout, and volume.
In Sanofi’s view, Cimed intentionally uses the same color tones and lettering patterns in Alergomine as in its product (violet packaging), which leads to confusion for consumers at the time of purchase.
The lawsuit states that Cimed is taking advantage of the renown of Sanofi’s brands with an “excessive similarity” of its products, which would lead consumers to make mistakes at the time of purchase.
Cimed understands, however, that it uses “colors consistent with trends in the therapeutic category.” It also states that its competitor omitted in the process that it resorted to the same “tactic that has already failed” in another lawsuit in the São Paulo court in November 2019.
In that case, Sanofi’s claim that Cimed’s Fexx allergy medication (also packaged in violet) improperly replicated the appearance of Allegra was deemed unfounded.
Cimed representatives also claim that, in the current process, the issue was discussed with Conar at the end of 2024.
That year, Sanofi claimed that Cimed’s Nevralgex packaging violated the trade dress of Dorflex, one of the best-selling products in its category in Brazil.
Conar’s Sixth Chamber, which considered the case that year, dismissed the risk of consumer confusion at the time of purchase, noting that only “extremely inattentive consumers” would confuse the medications.
Despite this, the rapporteur proposed that Nevralgex packaging should be changed to ensure a clearer and more objective distinction from Dorflex and to avoid any possibility of confusion, and the vote was unanimously accepted.
The proposal is not mandatory, and no changes were made to the product’s packaging. The Conar rapporteur said, however, that consumers do not tend to make impulse purchases of medicines, which helps limit errors, but rather base their purchases on medical recommendations or previous experiences.
The author of the complaint to Conar was Opella Healthcare Brazil, a Sanofi division that is also a plaintiff in the São Paulo Civil Court’s process.
Cimed argues in the action that Sanofi decided to sue in reaction to a complaint it made last year to the Federal Prosecution Service and the health regulator Anvisa against a campaign by Novalgina, a Sanofi brand.
This campaign, in Cimed’s view, leads consumers to believe that Sanofi’s product would be superior in efficacy to generic drugs—something that Sanofi claims is merely an assumption by Cimed.
Court documents show that Cimed escalates its arguments to the point of requesting that Sanofi be penalized for bad faith and sham litigation, aiming to harm a competitor and impede free competition.
To defend their positions, images of both companies’ products, in different versions of Allegra, Dorflex, Novalgina, Alergomine, and Nevralgex, were filed in court, highlighting similarities or differences depending on each party’s allegations.
Both companies were questioned by Judge Mazutti last August regarding their interest in reaching an agreement through a conciliation hearing, but they declared opposition to a settlement. On November 28, the judge moved forward with the process and requested an expert assessment of the alleged trade dress violation, as requested by Sanofi.
Sanofi Medley is seeking compensation for moral damages in the amount of R$50,000 and has set the value of the action at R$150,000.
The value of the action itself is not substantial because, in cases involving visual identity, economic compensation is not the focus of the lawsuits, according to intellectual property lawyers, but rather the pursuit of brand protection. They believe that, today, this kind of action needs to be very well supported to move forward.
“There are universal standards in the pharmaceutical category that help consumers identify the brand, but there are also individual aesthetic characteristics that must be respected,”
an expert lawyer told Valor.
According to a pharmaceutical executive, “everyone copies the benchmark brands,” and this is “somewhat accepted by the market.”
“Dorflex has been a champion in sales of over-the-counter products for a long time, so it’s natural for it to be a benchmark for others in the category,”
he said.
The executive draws attention to the fact that this move by Sanofi is happening when Cimed was one of the interested parties, until the end of last year, in the purchase of Medley—which was separated from the French company Sanofi.
“Sanofi is filing this lawsuit right at the time of the offer. There may be some clause in the M&A stating that there will be no negotiation with companies in conflict,”
he said.
As Valor reported in December, Sanofi received non-binding proposals for Medley that month. The deal is valued between R$1.5 billion and R$2 billion, according to sources.
Asked for comment, Sanofi declared in a written statement that the legal action was filed before the company's corporate separation from Opella, and the assets and brands mentioned were transferred to Opella at that time, with Opella currently being the plaintiff in the process.
Opella states that it does not comment on ongoing appeals. “The company remains committed to complying with current legislation and observing applicable regulatory standards.”
Sanofi also says that Opella, the group's former consumer healthcare division, began operating as an independent company in April 2025.
Cimed declined to comment on ongoing actions.
Source: Valor International
