The surge in demand for GLP-1 and GIP medicines—particularly those containing semaglutide and tirzepatide—has created significant commercial opportunity. It has also exposed a growing problem: the manufacture and sale of unregistered and potentially unlawful alternatives.
Recent enforcement action by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) highlights the scale of the issue, particularly in relation to products marketed for weight loss (see SAHPRA and the SAPC Crack Down on Unlawful Manufacturing of Unregistered GLP-1/ GIP Medicines). While this is often viewed as a regulatory concern, it raises equally important questions for trade mark law.
Trade marks are traditionally seen as tools for distinguishing one trader’s goods from another’s. In the pharmaceutical sector, however, they do far more. They signal quality, safety, efficacy and regulatory legitimacy.
When those signals are misused, the consequences extend beyond commercial harm—they can directly affect public health.
More Than Molecules: Reputation as the Real Asset
The success of products such as OZEMPIC®, Wegovy® and MOUNJARO® is not driven by their active ingredients alone.
Through years of clinical research, regulatory scrutiny and market presence, these brands have accumulated significant reputational capital. Consumers are not simply looking for semaglutide or tirzepatide—they are looking for certainty.
Consumers want products backed by known standards of safety, tested efficacy and regulatory oversight.
In this context, the goodwill attached to a pharmaceutical trade mark reflects far more than brand recognition. It represents confidence in the entire lifecycle of the product—from development and approval to manufacture and distribution.
Reputation Laundering: Trading on Trust Without Earning It
In the current GLP-1 market, misuse of reputation does not always take the form of direct counterfeiting or even traditional trade mark infringement.
More often, products are marketed as alternatives, equivalents or substitutes for well-known medicines. Advertising often references established brands to attract consumer attention and to confer an aura of legitimacy on products that may not have undergone the same level of regulatory scrutiny.
This is where a more subtle form of exploitation emerges.
Even without reproducing a trade mark, these practices appropriate the trust associated with it. The result is what can aptly be described as reputation laundering, being the transfer of credibility from a trusted product to one that has not independently earned it.
From a trade mark perspective, the damage goes far beyond lost sales. It weakens the link between the brand and the qualities consumers expect from it.
The Consequences for Consumer Trust
The risks become most apparent when products fail to meet expectations- or worse, raise safety concerns.
If a consumer experiences harm after using a product marketed with reference to a well-known brand, the reputational fallout rarely remains confined to the seller. It can spill over to the genuine product.
This is what makes pharmaceutical trade marks unique. The goodwill they embody is inseparable from consumer trust in the safety and reliability of medicines.
Once that trust is compromised, the consequences extend beyond individual brand owners. They can influence patient behaviour, clinical decision and confidence in an entire class of treatments.
The Growing Union Between Regulatory Enforcement and Trade Mark Protection
Historically, regulatory compliance and trade mark enforcement have been treated as distinct legal disciplines. Increasingly, however, the two are becoming interconnected.
Regulatory authorities seek to protect consumers from unsafe or unapproved products. Trade mark owners seek to protect the reputation and goodwill associated with their brands. In many cases, these objectives are aligned.
SAHPRA’s recent focus on unregistered GLP-1 products illustrates this convergence. Both regulators and trade mark proprietors share an interest in ensuring that consumers are not misled regarding the nature, origin or reliability of pharmaceutical products.
As pharmaceutical brands continue to acquire substantial reputational capital, the distinction between consumer protection and brand protection becomes increasingly difficult to draw.
It is clear that pharmaceutical trade marks are no longer simply badges of origin. They have become proxies for trust. As the current GLP-1 market demonstrates, protecting that trust is not only a commercial imperative- it is increasingly a matter of public health.
