Australia hit by WTO action over plain packaging

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

Cookies Settings

Australia hit by WTO action over plain packaging

Ukraine has launched legal proceedings at the WTO over Australia’s plans to force tobacco companies to sell cigarettes in plain packs

Yesterday Ukraine’s representative in Geneva requested consultations with Australia. This is 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.

Questions about the compatibility of TRIPs with Australia’s new plain packaging law were discussed at the last meeting of the TRIPs Council in February. The issue of tobacco packaging was placed on the agenda by the Dominican Republic.

At previous meetings, a number of WTO member states, including the Ukraine, Mexico, Nigeria, Cuba, Honduras and Zimbabwe, have argued that the law will violate Australia’s obligations under the TRIPs Agreement by preventing cigarette and cigar companies from using their trade marks.

Representatives from a number of other countries have argued that they should be able to use the flexibilities in TRIPs for public health purposes.

Australia’s parliament passed the government’s plain packaging legislation in November. The legislation was split into two bills – Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011.

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.

Managing IP will have more analysis of the dispute later this week.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article