On this page
What information supports an FDA proprietary-name review request?
Provide the exact proposed name, first-choice status, pronunciation, derivation and modifier rationale, together with the actual product and medication-use context. Identify the application and whether the request is initial, an amendment or reconsideration. Include proposed labeling and packaging where available, or the specified product information where it is not. A similarity search alone does not establish that the name is safe or acceptable.
Before you begin
Proposed proprietary-name review for applicable human drug/biologic applications. A brand name is distinct from a biological proper-name suffix; historical review clocks in the 2016 guidance are not current timing guarantees.
What you will prepare: A name-review package identifying the requested action, pronunciation, derivation, product characteristics and supporting evaluation.
Sections covered in this guide (2)
Define the request and application stage
Identify whether the request is initial review, amendment or reconsideration, together with the application, sponsor contact and proposed first-choice name. Section IV of the April 2016 guidance describes the submission content. Use current applicable form instructions and field labels; do not assume an old field number remains correct. Confirm review timing through the applicable current program and agency interaction rather than promising a historic PDUFA IV clock.
Explain how the name is intended to be understood
Record the exact spelling and intended pronunciation, derivation and meaning of any prefix or suffix. Identify alternatives and preference without implying all alternatives are automatically reviewed together. Explain any modifier and provide the actual supporting evaluation. Do not invent evidence that a name cannot be confused with another product; name safety is more than a text-similarity score.
Supply the product’s medication-use context
Reconcile dosage form, strength, route, intended use, dose/use setting, packaging and proposed labels with the current product program. Provide available name-safety analyses with methods and limitations. If the formulation or route changes, assess whether the prior name evaluation still reflects the intended product. A name that seemed distinguishable in one context may present different confusion risks in another.
Fictional example: an ambiguous modifier
A proposed suffix implies a release characteristic that the formulation does not have. Identify the intended meaning and the mismatch; do not solve it by deleting the explanation from the request. If the name was previously found unacceptable, address the actual reasons with evidence in a reconsideration request rather than resubmitting unchanged material as if no decision existed.
Connect the name to how the product will be selected and used
The name review concerns both medication-error risk and promotional implications. A name that sounds distinctive in a meeting can behave differently in a spoken order, product list or package lineup. Prepare the request around the actual proposed product rather than a brand concept detached from its use.
| Information | Record | Why it matters to the review |
|---|---|---|
| Exact name | Spelling, intended pronunciation and derivation | Spoken and written interpretations may differ |
| Modifier | Intended meaning, rationale and available supporting studies | A prefix or suffix can imply a product property the formulation does not have |
| Product identity | Established name, pharmacologic/therapeutic category and prescription status | Other names and use context can contribute to confusion |
| Form, strength and route | All proposed presentations, not just the first launch pack | Overlapping strengths or different routes can change the consequence of confusion |
| Use and handling | Proposed regimen, relevant population adjustments, preparation, administration and storage | Similar names may encounter each other in the same workflow or location |
| Packaging and labels | Color artwork, actual dimensions and proposed marketplace presentation | A prominent logo, obscured name or similar pack can affect selection |
| Prior review | Agency decision and the exact changed product or name inputs | A previous assessment may not address the current proposal |
The April 2016 guidance describes up to two proposed proprietary names with the first choice identified. It says the alternate is not evaluated unless the primary is unacceptable and the applicant confirms in writing that it wants alternate review. Do not present the list as two names automatically reviewed in parallel. Its historical PDUFA IV clock discussion is not a current turnaround promise.
Where proposed labeling exists, provide the relevant text and packaging context described in IV.C.1. Where it does not, IV.C.2 lists the product information needed for the review, including established name, prescription status, form, strengths, indications, routes, dosing/use information, storage and packaging. Do not fill missing fields with invented future label language; identify actual development assumptions and unresolved inputs.
Fictional modifier exercise: a proposed brand modifier is intended to suggest a prolonged dosing interval, but the program has not established that regimen. Document the intended meaning and the evidence gap, then resolve the naming proposal with the responsible owners. Hiding the modifier's explanation does not remove the implication a prescriber or patient may perceive.
If the product changes route, strength, packaging or use setting during review, identify the changed input and assess its effect on the request. For reconsideration, address the actual reasons FDA found the name unacceptable; do not merely resubmit the same search report under a new filename. Keep the name proposed in controlled drafts until the relevant decision establishes its status.
Use the carton/container guide to prepare usable packaging evidence. A biological proper-name suffix is a separate naming question and should not be treated as a brand-name modifier or trademark choice.
Your preparation checklist
0/3 checkedUse this to track your review in this visit. Checks are not saved and do not establish regulatory compliance.
Frequently asked questions
Will FDA automatically review both proposed proprietary names together?
The April 2016 guidance permits up to two names with the first choice identified, but says the alternate is not evaluated unless the primary is unacceptable and written confirmation requests alternate review. Establish the current interaction and instructions; do not assume simultaneous review or promise a historical user-fee clock.
Can a name review be prepared before proposed labeling is available?
The guidance describes information to provide when proposed labeling is unavailable, including product identity, form, strengths, indications, routes, dosing/use context, storage and packaging. Prepare those actual inputs and identify uncertainty. A bare proposed name without its product context does not give the reviewer the same information.
Does a low text-similarity score prove that a proprietary name is acceptable?
No. Review considers spoken and written confusion, product characteristics, packaging, use context and promotional implications. Describe the methods, findings and limitations of any submitted analysis. A numerical similarity screen is one possible input, not a substitute for assessing the proposed name in the medication-use setting.
What should a reconsideration request address?
Identify the prior agency decision and respond to its actual reasons with the relevant evidence or changed proposal. Keep the current product and name inputs explicit. Repackaging unchanged material without addressing the concern does not explain why the earlier assessment should be reconsidered.
Sources and revisions
Requirements, source recommendations and editorial preparation advice have different roles. Review the scope and revision of the source you use.
Guidance
FDA: Complete Submission for Evaluation of Proprietary Names ↗April 2016 final, Revision 1; section IV. Historical PDUFA IV discussion is not used as a current review-time promise. Checked September 22, 2026.
Technical specification · placement only
FDA eCTD v4.0 comprehensive hierarchy ↗Version 2.2, February 2025. Section 1.18. A heading identifies placement, not mandatory applicability.