Real Safety AI Foundation / Research

Policy, Enforcement, and Implementation

The Case FDA Already Answered: Pill Appearance, Trade Dress Functionality, and the Patients Who Cannot Absorb a Change

Publisher: Real Safety AI Foundation

Working paper. Not peer reviewed.

Written
September 2026
Pages
37
Download PDFExport BibTeXExport RIS

Abstract

In 2011 a commentator argued in a pharmacy journal that the Food and Drug Administration should standardize the appearance of bioequivalent medications, that judicial precedent had already made trade dress rights in a medicine's appearance nearly impossible to establish, and that formal agency recognition of appearance as functional would end most trade dress claims because functionality is the agency's question and not the courts'. In 2014 the agency answered in a medical journal. It conceded that changes in pill appearance contribute to patient non-compliance, then said that trade dress protections are extensive, that even color can constitute a defensible trademark, and that its options were therefore limited to guidance and surveillance. It assigned the remaining burden to the dispensing pharmacist. More than a decade later nothing has changed, and the agency's legal premise has not held up. This Article argues that the barrier the agency invoked does not exist, and that the agency's own materials prove it. Part 206 of Title 21 already forbids any solid oral dosage form from entering interstate commerce without a code imprint that, together with the product's size, shape, and color, permits unique identification, and the exemption list published alongside that rule contains six grounds, none of them intellectual property. The agency then issued guidance recommending that generic tablets closely approximate the size of the reference drug, for the stated purpose of patient compliance, and declined to say anything about color, the one attribute over which trade dress is litigated. Federal courts have meanwhile held pill appearance functional precisely because patients rely on it, which under settled doctrine defeats protection rather than establishing it, and a claim to trade dress in a pill's color additionally requires a showing of secondary meaning that prescription drugs are structurally unable to make, because the patient never sees the manufacturer's packaging. That the question keeps arriving as a trademark dispute between two firms, in which the patient appears only as evidence, is itself an argument for deciding it somewhere else. The Article then identifies the population the record does not count. For patients with persecutory-spectrum conditions and for older patients with cognitive impairment, an unannounced change in a pill's appearance is not an adherence variable. It is evidence, absorbed into a belief structure, and the disclosure the agency assigned to the pharmacist can recruit the person delivering it into the very system it was meant to disconfirm.

Keywords

  • disability law
  • ADA Title III
  • trade dress
  • functionality doctrine
  • generic substitution
  • FDA
  • medication adherence
  • persecutory delusion
  • reasonable modification
  • preemption

Suggested citation

Gilly, Travis. "The Case FDA Already Answered: Pill Appearance, Trade Dress Functionality, and the Patients Who Cannot Absorb a Change." Real Safety AI Foundation Working Paper, September 2026. https://realsafetyai.org/research/the-case-fda-already-answered/

References (34)

  1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§12101–12213.
  2. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).
  3. Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 547 F. Supp. 1095 (D.N.J. 1982).
  4. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996).
  5. Drug Products in Solid Oral Dosage Form, 21 C.F.R. pt. 206.
  6. Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2003).
  7. Engelberg, A. B. (2011). The case for standardizing the appearance of bioequivalent medications. J. Managed Care Pharmacy, 17, 321.
  8. Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte International America Corp., 986 F.3d 250 (3d Cir.), as amended (Mar. 10, 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 420 (2021).
  9. Halabi, S. F. (2022). Trademarks, trade dress, and the patient costs of pharmaceutical branding. N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L., 11, 132.
  10. Ives Laboratories, Inc. v. Darby Drug Co., 488 F. Supp. 394 (E.D.N.Y. 1980).
  11. Freeman, D. (2016). Persecutory delusions: A cognitive perspective on understanding and treatment. Lancet Psychiatry, 3, 685.
  12. Le, T. P., Fedechko, T. L., & Cohen, A. S. (2019). Stress and cognitive biases in schizotypy. European Psychiatry, 62, 20.
  13. Greene, J. A., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2011). Why do the same drugs look different? Pills, trade dress, and public health. New Eng. J. Med., 365, 83.
  14. Kesselheim, A. S., Bykov, K., & Avorn, J. (2014). Burden of changes in pill appearance for patients receiving generic cardiovascular medications after myocardial infarction. Annals Internal Med., 161, 96.
  15. Kesselheim, A. S., Misono, A. S., & Shrank, W. H. (2013). Variations in pill appearance of antiepileptic drugs and the risk of nonadherence. JAMA Internal Med., 173, 202.
  16. Lertxundi, U., et al. (2018). Influence of an inconsistent appearance of antipsychotics on drug adherence in patients with schizophrenia. Medicine, 97, e12990.
  17. Lionberger, R., & Uhl, K. (2019). Generic drugs: Expanding possibilities for clinical pharmacology. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 105, 278.
  18. Lumbreras, B., Sanz-Valero, J., & López-Pintor, R. (2021). Impact of variation in pill/package appearance of drugs on patients’ behavior: A systematic review. J. Patient Safety, 18, 310.
  19. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982).
  20. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
  21. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013).
  22. Morris v. PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774 (5th Cir. 2013).
  23. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations, 28 C.F.R. §36.307.
  24. Supplements and Other Changes to an Approved NDA, 21 C.F.R. §314.70.
  25. Novartis AG v. Novadoz Pharmaceuticals LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00849 (D.N.J. July 15, 2025).
  26. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011).
  27. Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
  28. Size, Shape, and Other Physical Attributes of Generic Tablets and Capsules; Guidance for Industry; Availability, 80 Fed. Reg. 35366 (June 19, 2015).
  29. Sarpatwari, A., et al. (2019). A survey of patients’ perceptions of pill appearance and responses to changes in appearance for four chronic disease medications. J. Gen. Internal Med., 34, 420.
  30. Shire US Inc. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 329 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2003).
  31. So, S. H., Freeman, D., & Dunn, G. (2012). Jumping to conclusions, a lack of belief flexibility and delusional conviction in psychosis. J. Abnormal Psychology, 121, 129.
  32. Trotta, A., Kang, J.-W., & Ståhl, D. (2020). Interpretation bias in paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychological Science, 9, 3.
  33. TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001).
  34. Uhl, K., & Peters, J. R. (2014). Burden of changes in generic pill appearance. Annals Internal Med., 161, 839.

All research