Plain Packaging Tobacco: A Multi-Jurisdictional Commentary Relating to the Effect on Intellectual Property Rights and What the Tobacco Industry Plans Ahead of the Alleged Curtailment on Its Branding

Abstract The sovereignty of a country to issue a policy or regulation in the field of international trade is limited by the enactment of the provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO), especially for countries that have ratified the GATT / WTO. If a country issues rules and/or policy that conflict with WTO provisions, it will result in the country being sued by another country. As happened with the policy issued by Australia. Indonesia is suing Australia to the WTO for the rules and/or policies for the plain packaging of cigarette products (The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011) imposed by Australia. The policy is considered contrary to the provisions of the WTO, specifically the provisions of TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). This research utilizes a normative juridical method by paying attention to legal materials such as legal principles, legal principles, international conventions, and legislation relating to the problem of The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. From the results of the study can be seen WTO considerations in this case. In addition, there are also advantages and disadvantages of the implementation of The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act in the future. Keywords: WTO/GATT, The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, International Economic Law AbstrakKedaulatan suatu negara untuk mengeluarkan suatu kebijakan atau peraturan dalam bidang perdagangan internasional dibatasi oleh berlakunya ketentuan-ketentuan dalam World Trade Organization (WTO), terutama bagi negara-negara yang telah meratifikasi GATT/WTO. Apabila negara mengeluarkan aturan dan/atau kebijakan yang bertentangan dengan ketentuan WTO akan mengakibatkan negara tersebut digugat oleh negara lain. Seperti yang terjadi dengan kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh Australia. Indonesia menggugat Australia ke WTO atas aturan dan/atau kebijakan kemasan polos produk rokok (The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011) yang diberlakukan oleh Australia. Kebijakan tersebut dianggap bertentangan dengan ketentuan WTO, khususnya ketentuan TRIPS (Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan memperhatikan bahan hukum seperti asas-asas hukum, prinsip-prinsip hukum, konvensi internasional, serta perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan masalah The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. Dari hasil penelitian dapat terlihat pertimbangan WTO dalam kasus ini. Selain itu, terlihat juga keuntungan dan kekurangan dari pemberlakuan The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act ke depannya. Kata kunci: WTO/GATT, The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act, Hukum Ekonomi Internasional

Get full-text (via PubEx)

How Trade-Restrictive Is Standardized Packaging? Economic and Legal Implications of the WTO Panel Reports in Australia–Tobacco Plain Packaging

World Trade Review ◽

10.1017/s1474745620000051 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 267-281

Author(s):

Kristy Buzard ◽

Tania Voon

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Tobacco Consumption ◽

Effective Alternative ◽

Technical Barriers To Trade ◽

Plain Packaging ◽

Legal Implications ◽

Restrictive Measures

AbstractThe lengthy and long-awaited WTO Panel Reports in Australia–Tobacco Plain Packaging contain a host of material for reflection, particularly in relation to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. While two of the Panel Reports proceed to appeal, we consider with respect to the two adopted Panel Reports the Panel's reasoning in relation to Article 2.2 of the TBT, focusing on the meaning of trade-restrictiveness. This concept central to WTO law has been under-examined to date, and these Panel Reports demonstrate some of the complexities in identifying trade-restrictive measures, particularly where they are non-discriminatory. The Panel found that Australia's measures restrict trade because they contribute to their objective of reducing tobacco consumption. Therefore, any equally effective alternative will similarly restrict trade. This curious result under TBT Article 2.2 may be particular to non-discriminatory measures that target ‘socially bad’ products such as tobacco.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

The Revitalisation of the Object and Purpose of the TRIPS Agreement

10.1093/oso/9780198863168.003.0012 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 267-294

Author(s):

Christophe Geiger ◽

Luc Desaunettes-Barbero

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Trips Agreement ◽

Plain Packaging ◽

Trade Law ◽

The Awakening ◽

International Trade Law ◽

Appellate Body

The limited role the objectives and principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (Arts 7 and 8) have played so far in the interpretation and implementation of its substantive provisions has often been criticised. The WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports in the ‘Australia—Plain Packaging’ dispute are likely to change this situation for the future as, for the first time, the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement bodies fully engaged with Arts 7 and 8 to interpret Art 20 relative to the use of trade marks. Reliance on these provisions led the Panel and the Appellate Body to conclude that there are legitimate reasons for which Members may encumber trade mark use. The awakening of these two long dormant provisions could have a fundamental impact in offering the possibility of a more flexible reading of TRIPS. It could indeed secure the adaptability of intellectual property rights to the evolution of economic, technological and social circumstances by guaranteeing a more balanced interpretation of the limitations and exceptions included in the Agreement, for example, as advocated several years ago by a group of international IP scholars in the ‘Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the three-step test’. Furthermore, the use of these two provisions could serve as a gateway for the taking into account of ethical imperatives, supported by international human rights in the interpretation of the TRIPS norms, such as, for example, public health imperatives, crucial in the context of pandemics. Such a reading has been advocated in the past and the ‘Plain Packaging’ reports might lead to a more frequent and welcome reliance on human rights arguments in the context of international trade law.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

How to Reconcile Human Rights, Trade Law, Intellectual Property, Investment and Health Law?

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018 ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190072506.003.0003 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 69-102 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Property Rights ◽

Intellectual Property Rights ◽

Health Law ◽

Technical Barriers To Trade ◽

Tobacco Products ◽

Plain Packaging ◽

Trade Law ◽

Health Rights

This article on the legal findings of the four WTO panel reports of June 2018 on Australia’s tobacco plain packaging (TPP) measures begins with a discussion of the ‘systemic interpretation’ challenges (section I) and ‘legitimacy challenges’ of WTO panel interpretations of trade rules that affect also related disputes over intellectual property rights, health rights, investment regulations and human rights (section II). Section III summarizes the main Panel findings that the TPP measures are apt to, and do make a meaningful contribution to Australia’s objective of reducing the use of, and exposure to, tobacco products; the claimants have not demonstrated that the TPP measures are ‘more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective’ in violation of Article 2.2 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Section IV summarizes the Panel findings that the complainants did not demonstrate that the TPP measures were inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Section V concludes.

Get full-text (via PubEx)