Free access: Plain tobacco packaging becomes law in Australia
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Free access: Plain tobacco packaging becomes law in Australia

Australia’s government passed plain packaging legislation today but now faces a legal fight on at least two fronts as the tobacco companies step up their campaign against the law

The Senate passed the legislation earlier this month with a series of amendments that were approved by the House of Representatives today.

This means that from December next year all tobacco sold in Australia will be sold in plain, dark brown packs – with no industry logos, brand imagery, colours or promotional text.

The name of the brand of cigarettes will appear on the pack in a standard font size, colour and position.

Within hours, Philip Morris Asia said that it had served a notice of arbitration under Australia’s Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong.

"We are left with no option," said Anne Edwards, a spokesperson for Philip Morris Asia, adding that Australia’s government has ignored "serious legal issues associated with plain packaging".

The company wants the legislation to be suspended and compensation to be paid for what it describes as the loss of the company’s trade marks in Australia.

"We are confident that our legal arguments are very strong and that we will ultimately win this case," said Edwards.

The legislation was split into two Bills – Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011.

The tobacco companies have consistently argued that the legislation breaches Australia’s commitments under the TRIPs Agreement, violates the country’s constitution and will make it easier for cigarette packets to be counterfeited.

Philip Morris Asia announced its intention to sue the Australian government using the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Hong Kong in June.

The company’s statement today said that its Australian subsidiary will also be pursuing claims under domestic law before the High Court of Australia.

British American Tobacco Australia said earlier this month that it intends to sue the Australian government in the High Court as soon as the legislation receives Royal Assent.

BAT claims that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to remove its property without compensation.

"In years to come plain packaging will be remembered as the legislation which wasted billions of taxpayer’s dollars, caused uncontrollable growth in organised gang activity on the black market and increased smoking rates in young people."

Click here to read all of Managing IP’s coverage of the plain packaging controversy.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article