Sentences with phrase «brand label warning»

Not exact matches

In a blunt warning to suppliers, Mr Durkan says Coles will not only demand that they justify price rises by proving that their costs are increasing, but is prepared to replace branded goods with private label equivalents if branded prices rise too fast.

Scherz noted that the system is a cost - effective solution to market drivers including private - label branding, regulatory compliance and supply chain optimization that push users to increase their use of product pictures, logos, color warnings and variable data elements.

Those in favour of more stringent packaging laws are advocating not just for increased information on drinks labels, but also for toned - down packaging, similar to that of tobacco.As of 2016, tobacco products in the UK are required to have a standard, plain packaging with graphic health warnings and stripped of any strong branding.

He also warned Woolworths against launching a new «pseudo-brand» private - label range to compete with Aldi's house brands, saying similar strategies had been abandoned in Britain.

The increasing credibility of private label products which, crucially, often undercut brands on price is a warning for brands who are under increasing pressure from consumers who are becoming more open to the idea of buying own label groceries,» Chris Wisson concludes.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

It refuses to warn on labels that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria and does not give correct instructions on how to reduce the risks — unless forced to by law (as in the UK, where it markets the SMA brand).

If you must DIY, try to buy less toxic pesticide brands, such as EcoSmart, and note label warnings.

The labels on some brands, for example, warn to have no more than one drink per day.

Philip Morris challenged two of Uruguay's tobacco control measures: the requirement that graphic warning labels cover 80 % of the front and back of cigarette packs, and the requirement that each brand of cigarettes have only a single presentation (i.e., that there only be one type of Marlboro cigarette on the market, not Marlboro Red, Marlboro Gold and Marlboro Blue).

That's because the warning and usage labels are created by the brand name manufacturer, but because brand name manufacturers aren't the ones making the drugs at issue, many courts have held they can not be liable.

Brand names including Cipro, Avelox, and Levaquin were forced by the FDA to include warning labels in 2013 following reports linking the products to neuropathy.

In accordance with the «federal duty of «sameness»» the two opportunities to alter a generic manufacturers preexisting warning are to: (1) update their label in response to their brand - name counterpart's update; and (2) per specific FDA instruction.

[9] The potential lifelong side effects of this drug were not disclosed within the brand - name manufacturer's nor the mirrored generic manufacturer's warning label.

[16] The SJC considered innovator liability to require such a modification given the certainty that a user of a generic drug will rely on the label fashioned by the brand - name manufacturer and as state law shields failure to warn claims from generic manufacturers, leaving plaintiffs without recourse for their injuries.

Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., [4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand - name manufacturer of the drug if the brand - name defendant acted recklessly by «intentionally fail [ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.»

[10] Rafferty presented evidence that the brand - name manufacturer became aware of these potential long - term side effects by 2008, when it updated Proscar's warning label in select European markets to include this risk.

Relevant to the matter considered by the SJC, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the «Hatch - Waxman Act» requires the «manufacturer of a generic drug [to] provide its users with a warning label that is identical to the label of the brand - name counterpart.»

With generic drugs, it is not merely foreseeable but certain that the warning label provided by the brand - name manufacturer will be identical to the warning label provided by the generic manufacturer, and moreover that it will be relied on, not only by users of its own product, but also by users of the generic product.