The WTO battle over plain packaging: what happens next?

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

The WTO battle over plain packaging: what happens next?

Last week Australian judges gave the green light to a law to introduce plain packaging for tobacco. Now Ukraine has requested the WTO assemble a panel to hear its dispute against Australia’s plan. As the legal challenge shifts from Canberra to Geneva, what happens next?

I’ve heard all about the Australian High Court’s ruling upholding Australia’s plain packaging law. But what’s happening at the WTO?

In March this year Ukraine launched legal proceedings at the WTO over Australia’s plans to force tobacco companies to sell cigarettes in plain packs. Its representative in Geneva requested consultations with Australia, the first step in a legal dispute at the trade body. The Ukrainian government argues that Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and its Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act 2011 violate the TRIPs Agreement and GATT, the umbrella agreement covering trade in goods. Honduras and the Dominican Republic later requested consultations of their own.

Why Ukraine? Does it export a lot of tobacco?

No. It’s something of a mystery why the country would launch a complaint.

So what’s happened now?

A spokesman for the WTO has confirmed that Ukraine has stepped up its campaign against the Australian law. Last week it requested that an item be added to the agenda of the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to set up a panel to hear its dispute. That meeting is due to take place on August 31 and agenda for the meeting is set to be published tomorrow.

Who has to agree?

Australia needs to agree to a panel being set up. It can only deny Ukraine’s request once however, so if, as is normally the case, it rejects the request at this month’s meeting, a panel will likely be set up following the September meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body.

What about Honduras and the Dominican Republic?

If they request a panel be set up, there’s a strong chance that it could be merged with the panel requested by Ukraine, as long as a long period of time hasn’t elapsed between the requests.

What’s the timetable?

Once a panel has been set up – which will be made up of three independent panellists – it has six months in which to report to the parties. One or both parties can appeal, and the appellate body has between two and three months in which to report back. If Australia’s law is ultimately found to breach WTO rules, and Australia refuses to change it, its goods could be the subject of sanctions from Ukraine, or the other two complainants, if they are successful.

What is Australia’s reaction to the Ukrainian request for a panel?

“Australia will strongly defend its right to regulate to protect public health through the plain packaging of tobacco products,” Craig Emerson, the country’s trade minister, said today. “The Government is confident that its plain packaging legislation is consistent with Australia’s WTO obligations.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article