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

Attorney Oran Friar and trainee attorney Harry Cunliffe at Reddie & Grose, share that patent filings for clinical LLMs are surging, but success in the UK and Europe hinges on demonstrating technical innovation
Implementers can use the UK courts to seek FRAND terms for patent pool licences
The first credible UPC spinouts are growing, and they are coming from elite patent litigation teams, suggesting specialist litigators may no longer need large platforms to compete
Voyage IP has hired a veteran IP leader from Spruson & Ferguson as its head of trademarks, as well as another consultant who will boost the firm’s commercial offering
Lawyers say unwritten appearance expectations can disproportionately affect women and junior talent, making proactive guidance a growing responsibility for law firm leaders
Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Gift this article