AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the Dominican Republic
Date: 14 November 2012
Document codes: WT/DS441/15
Complainant: Dominican
Respondent: Australia
Third parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, EU, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, U.S., China, Nigeria, Indonesia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Cuba, Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Ecuador
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.4, 20, 22.2(b), 24.3  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4  GATT 1994Art. 16.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the Dominican Republic

 The following communication, dated 9 November 2012, from the delegation of the
Dominican Republic to the Chairperson of the Dis pute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 18 July 2012, the Dominican Republic requ ested consultations with the Government of
Australia pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII of the Genera l Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("GATT 1994"), Article 64.1 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (" TRIPS Agreement "), and Article 14.1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
("TBT Agreement "). This request concerned Australia's measures establishing a comprehensive
regulation of the appearance and form of the retail packaging of tobacco products, and of the tobacco
products themselves.

Consultations on these measures were held on 27 September 2012. Unfortunately, these
consultations have failed to settle the dispute.

The Dominican Republic therefore requests the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") to establish
a panel to examine this matter with standard terms of reference, as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU,
pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 64.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, and Article 14.1 of the TBT Agreement.

A. M
EASURES AT ISSUE
The measures at issue, which the Dominican Re public collectively refers to as the "plain
packaging measures", are the following:
 Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 , Act No. 148 of 2011, "An Act to discourage the use of
tobacco products, and for related purposes";
 Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 (Select Legislative Instrument 2011, No. 263), as
amended by the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 1) (Select
Legislative Instrument 2012, No. 29);
 Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act 2011, Act No. 149 of 2011, "An
Act to amend the Trade Marks Act 1995, and for related purposes"; and

 Any related measures adopted by Australia, incl uding measures that implement, complement
or add to these laws and regulations, as well as any measures that amend or replace these laws
and regulations.
These plain packaging measures apply to the retail sale of cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco
products. The plain packaging measures establish comprehensive regulation of the appearance and
form of the retail packaging of tobacco products , as well as of the tobacco products themselves.
Among others:
 with respect to the retail packaging of t obacco products, the measures (i) regulate the
appearance of trademarks and geographical i ndications, including by prohibiting the display
of design and figurative features, including tho se forming part of these intellectual property
rights; (ii) prescribe that the brand and variant names forming part of trademarks appear on
the front face, top and bottom of the package in a uniform typeface, font, size, colour, and
placement;
1 (iii) prohibit the display of other words (except for basic information, including
country of origin and manufacturer contact deta ils); and (iv) mandate a matt finish and drab
dark brown colour (Pantone 448C) for retail packaging;
 the measures establish that individual cigarett es may not display trademarks, geographical
indications or any other marking other than an alphanumeric code for product identification
purposes;
 the measures provide that individual cigars may carry: the brand name, variant name, country
of origin, and an alphanumeric code; these must be displayed in a uniform typeface, font, size,
and colour on a single band in a drab dark brown colour (Pantone 448C);2
 the measures regulate other aspects of both tobacco packaging and tobacco products, such as
the following requirements: (i) a retail packag e for cigarettes must be in a prescribed size,
form, and material; (ii) cigarettes must be white; 3 and (iii) a cigar tube must be cylindrical,
rigid, and have an opening of at least 15 mm.
B. L EGAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT
These plain packaging measures appear to be inc onsistent with Australia's obligations under
the following provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994:
 Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement , which incorporates the provisions of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property , as amended by the Stockholm Act of
1967 (" Paris Convention "), in particular, (i) Article 6 quinquies of the Paris Convention ,
because trademarks registered in a country of origin outside Australia are not protected "as
is"; and, (ii) Article 10 bis, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Paris Convention, because Australia
does not provide effective protection against unfair competition;

1 The brand name and variant must be displayed in Lucida Sans typeface; no larger than 14 points for
the brand name and 10 points for the variant name; with only the first letter capitalized; in regular font; in the
colour Pantone Cool Gray 2C; and below the graphic health warning on the front surface of cigarette packs.
2 They must appear only once on the band and be displayed in Lucida Sans typeface; no larger than
10 points in size; in regular font; and in the colour Pantone Cool Gray 2C. The brand and variant name should
be placed horizontally along the length of the band so that they run around the circumference of the cigar.
3 However, a cigarette may include an imitation cork tip that is printed brown, and is placed over a
filter tip.

 Article 3.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because Australia accords to nationals of other Members
treatment less favourable than it accords to its ow n nationals with respect to the protection of
intellectual property;
 Article 15.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, because the nature of the goods to which a trademark is
to be applied forms an obstacle to the registration of the trademark;
 Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement , because the measures prevent owners of registered
trademarks from enjoying the rights conferred by a trademark;
 Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement , because the use of trademarks in relation to tobacco
products is unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements, such as (i) use in a special
form, for example, the uniform typeface, font, size, colour, and placement of the brand name,
and, (ii) use in a manner detrimental to th e trademark's capability to distinguish tobacco
products of one undertaking from tobacco products of other undertakings;
 Article 22.2(b) of the TRIPS Agreement , because Australia does not provide effective
protection against acts of unfair competition with respect to geographical indications;
 Article 24.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, because Australia is diminishing the level of protection
it affords to geographical indications as compared with the level of protection that existed
prior to 1 January 1995;
 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement , because the technical regulations at issue accord to
imported tobacco products treatment less favourab le than accorded like products of national
origin;
 Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement , because the technical regulations at issue create
unnecessary obstacles to trade because they are more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill
a legitimate objective; and,
 Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, because the meas ures at issue accord to imported tobacco
products treatment less favourable than accorded like products of national origin.
The Dominican Republic asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to be
held on 17 December 2012.