WTO appoints plain pack panelists

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

WTO appoints plain pack panelists

World Trade Organization Director-General Roberto Azevêdo this week appointed three panelists to consider the legality of Australia’s law requiring plain packaging for tobacco products

The panel will be chaired by Alexander Erwin of South Africa. The other two members are François Dessemonted of Switzerland and Billie Miller of Barbados. The parties will make written and oral representations to the panel, which must finalize its report within six months.

The panelists will decide whether they think Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws breach the trade organization’s rules before the end of the year.

Five complaints have been brought by Ukraine, Indonesia, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Honduras against Australia. The six countries were unable to agree on who should examine the disputes. Under a harmonized procedure, the five complaints will be considered by the same three panelists.

Although each complaint targets Australia’s plain packaging rules, they are not exactly the same. Ukraine’s deals with “certain measures concerning trademarks and other plain packaging requirements applicable to tobacco products and packaging” while the rest also invoke the WTO’s rules on geographical indications.

The appointments come shortly after Australia complained that the unresolved trade row was having a chilling effect on other countries that are considering introducing similar constraints on the way that tobacco is packaged. Ukraine requested consultations with Australia under WTO procedures more than two years ago.

New Zealand has already said that it plans to follow Australia’s lead, and the UK government said last month it will introduce plain packaging following a review.

If the panel decides that plain packaging does breach WTO trade rules, it will recommend how the measure should be changed. Its report becomes the Dispute Settlement Body’s ruling or recommendation within 60 days unless a consensus rejects it. If a party appeals, the appeal will be heard by three members of the WTO’s permanent seven-member Appellate Body. It has up to 90 days to uphold, modify or reverse the panel’s legal findings and conclusions. The Dispute Settlement Body has to accept or reject the appeals report within 30 days – and rejection is only possible by consensus.

Plain packaging will be discussed tomorrow in the session CM02 Plain Packaging: Who Will It Affect Next? from 10:15 am to 11:30 am.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article