Pharmacopoeial medicine classification remains unchanged where accompanying literature adds research-based use information, without altering the product itself.

A medicine manufactured in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia does not lose its pharmacopoeial character merely because accompanying literature refers to later research or additional therapeutic uses. The essential test is whether the product itself was prepared according to the applicable pharmacopoeia; additional descriptive material does not, by itself, alter the product's legal classification. On that basis, the medicine could not be treated as a patent and proprietary medicine, and its classification as such was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a medicine made in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia loses its pharmacopoeial character merely because accompanying literature contains additional information about its use and, on that basis, can be classified as a patent and proprietary medicine.

Analysis: The determining factor was whether the product was otherwise manufactured according to the relevant pharmacopoeia. The presence of additional literature referring to later research and wider uses of the medicine did not, by itself, alter the essential character of the product or justify treating it as a patent and proprietary medicine when the basic preparation remained in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia.

Conclusion: The medicine did not cease to be a pharmacopoeial preparation merely because of the additional use-related information, and the classification as a patent and proprietary medicine was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional descriptive or research-based information in literature accompanying a product does not change its classification as a pharmacopoeial medicine if the product is otherwise manufactured according to the applicable pharmacopoeia.

---