Do plain packs actually help counterfeiters?
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

Do plain packs actually help counterfeiters?

Opponents of plain packaging say that the scheme ultimately benefits counterfeiters by making it easier to produce fakes, but a report commissioned by the tobacco companies don’t support this argument

Last week, British American Tobacco Australia (BAT) spokesperson Scott McIntyre released a statement declaring the world’s first tobacco plain packaging law a failure. McIntyre said that the law has had no effect on legal tobacco sales and is driving an increase in demand for illegal products.

Picture of cigarette plain package

This argument comes from a report by KPMG which was commissioned by BAT, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco Australia about plain packaging. Defining the illicit market as unbranded tobacco, contraband (otherwise legal products where duties have not been paid) and counterfeits, it found that there was an 8.2% increase in the size of the illicit market in the 12 months up to June 2013 when compared to the whole of 2012. It also found that tobacco consumption overall did not drop at an increased rate after the plain packs law came into effect.

Easy to fake it?

The law’s opponents have seized upon this report as evidence that plain packaging has not achieved its goals of reducing smoking, and that the increased in illicit tobacco has resulted in lost revenue for the government. The proponents of the law, such as Cancer Council Victoria, have challenged the KPMG report’s finding on both the efficacy of plain packaging and the claim that the illegal market has increased in size.

Of particular interest to trade mark practitioners is the debate over the counterfeit market. Opponents of plain packaging have long argued that plain packaging requirements make it easier for counterfeiters to sneak fakes into the market.

The KPMG report is one of the first studies with data about the counterfeit market in the plain packaging era, though the admittedly new evidence doesn’t show much to support the counterfeiting argument. Using a survey of empty tobacco packs collected in public trashcans throughout Australia, it found that the consumption of counterfeit manufactured cigarettes increased 70% between 2012 and the 12 months leading up to June 2013, though it also notes that the compound annual growth rate for counterfeit tobacco has dropped 4.4% from 2009 to June 2013. Furthermore, it shows several similar increases and decreases during this time frame.

In short, this increase in counterfeits looks more like statistical noise and less like an inflection point.

Seizure information from Australian Customs shows an increase of seizures of manufactured cigarettes in sea cargo, though again this increase is part of a five-year trend. In its 2012-2013 operation year, Customs seized 200 million sticks of manufactured cigarettes, a total that includes both counterfeits and contraband. This is an increase over the 141 million seized in 2011-2012, and the 82 million in 2010-2011. Data going back five years shows a drop each year, and is thus similarly inconclusive about the effects of plain packaging.

A spokesperson from Customs also told Managing IP that plain packaging doesn’t appear to have a big effect on smuggling, though she also points out that Customs’ priority is with the evasion of duty rather than counterfeiting per se. She explains that since plain packaging came into effect, there have been numerous seizures, only one of which involved plain packs.

Worried about counterfeits?

Furthermore, tobacco companies themselves are not using Customs to fight counterfeits. Though Australia has a Customs recordal system for IP owners, the Customs spokesperson notes that only one of the three major tobacco brands (BAT, Philip Morris and Imperial) have lodged a notice of objection. Customs can only seize counterfeit goods when the brand owner has filed the notice of objection.

Though debate about the effect of the law on brand owners and smokers’ habits will rage on, the data does not appear to support the claim that that plain packs have made counterfeiters’ jobs easier.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

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
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article