What Australia's ruling on plain packaging could mean for other countries
09 October 2012
|
Peter Leung, Hong Kong
On Friday, Australia’s High Court revealed why it upheld the country’s tobacco plain packaging laws in a decision in August. Peter Leung assesses what its ruling could mean for the battle over plain packaging brewing at the WTO and elsewhere
In December last year, JT International, which sells Silk Cut and Camel cigarettes, and British American Tobacco, whose products include Dunhill and Lucky Strike, went to court over Australia’s new plain packaging law.
The law requires all tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging with no logos and standardised colour, font, and positioning. The two companies sought assurance from judges that the new rules would not apply to their products, arguing that the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (TPP) amounted to an acquisition of their intellectual property rights and goodwill on other than just terms. This, they said, would be a breach of the Constitution.
In August the High Court ruled against the two companies. Last week it published a 374-paragraph ruling explaining why.
The Court soundly rejected claims made by tobacco companies that the law was an unconstitutional acquisition of their property...
Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP,
log in or
subscribe now.
Alternatively take a
free trial, giving you seven days access to Managing IP and regular newsletters for the international IP community, and US and Canadian practitioners specifically.
Subscribe Now
This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.
Subscribe
Take a free trial
Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.
Take a free trial