Source: https://www.fbrice.com.au/publication/WTO_panel_decision__Australia%E2%80%99s_tobacco_plain_packaging_legislation_not_in_violation_of_TRIPS.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:27:38+00:00

Document:
The decision regarding the violation of TRIPS’s trade mark provisions hinged on whether the TPP measures, substantially restricting the use of trade marks on tobacco products, are “unjustifiable”. The decision indicates that determination of what measures are justifiable is to be made on a case-by-case basis, by “weighing and balancing” the extent of the encumbrance to the use of trade marks and the contribution it makes to the objective of the measure. This provides governments with little indication of what other measures may be permitted under Art 20 of TRIPS.
In 2012, tobacco companies also openly assisted the governments of Honduras, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic and Cuba (the complainants),17 to utilise the WTO’s dispute settlement process to determine whether the TPP violates Australia’s international intellectual property protection provisions under TRIPS (and provi- sions of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994).18 Given the similarity of the claims, a single Panel was assembled in 2014 to hear the disputes.
The complainants argued the TPP was inconsistent with several of TRIPS’s trade mark protection provisions, including that the TPP is an obstacle to use of tobacco companies’ trade marks19 and prevents owners from enjoying the rights conferred by registration (ie, the right to use a mark).20 As with the High Court decision, these arguments were dismissed and the Panel confirmed trade mark owners’ exclusive rights under TRIPS are negative rights, not positive rights — that is, the rights conferred are those to prevent others from using a trade mark, not a positive right to use a trade mark.
The use of a trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements, such as use with another trademark, use in a special form or use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. This will not preclude a requirement prescrib- ing the use of the trademark identifying the undertaking producing the goods or services along with, but without linking it to, the trademark distinguishing the specific goods or services in question of that undertaking [emphasis added].
c. whether they do so “unjustifiably”.
As a result of these findings, Australia’s defence then rested on whether the TPP measures “unjustifiably” encumbered the use of trade marks in the course of trade. Extensive arguments were made on this issue by the complainants, Australia and a number of interested third parties.
Does the TPP unjustifiably encumber the use of trade marks?
The Panel also considered the principles of TRIPS under Art 8.1 (which provide that countries may formulate or amend their laws and adopt measures necessary to protect public health) may provide a basis for justification of the TPP measures under the terms of Art 20, and para 4 of the Doha Declaration33 which indicates each provision of TRIPS should be read in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement, which includes Art 8.
The Panel concluded that Australia had not “acted beyond the bounds of the latitude available to it under Article 20”37 in adopting a policy intervention to address public health concerns relating to tobacco products and imposing special requirements that encumber the use of trade marks in the course of trade.
However, given the Panel’s approach in determining whether Australia’s TPP measures are unjustifiable, the decision provides little guidance for governments as to what other policies restricting trade mark rights in order to address public health concerns or other societal interests will be permitted in accordance with Art 20 of TRIPS. The test is clearly to be made on a case-by-case basis depending on specific circumstances of the policy and by “weighing and balancing” the extent of the encumbrance against the contribution it makes to the objective.
Whilst Honduras and the Dominican Republic have appealed certain aspects of the Panel’s decision, the decision is expected to give confidence to other governments to implement similar plain packaging legislation.
This article first appeared in LexisNexis’ Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin Vol 31 No 9 and is reprinted with permission.
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 January 1995) annex 1C (“Agreement on Trade-RelatedAspects of IntellectualPropertyRights”) www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
Above n 1, s 21.
Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 (Cth), reg 2.2.1.
Above n 1, s 28.
Competition and Consumer (Tobacco) Information Standard, Div 4.
JT International SA v Commonwealth; British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Commonwealth (2012) 250 CLR 1; 291 ALR 669;  HCA 43; BC201207608.
Above n 8, at .
Above n 8, at –.
Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments  ATS 30 (entered into force 15 October 1993).
Philip Morris, Written Notification of Claim Australia/Hong Kong Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Invest- ments, 27 June 2011, www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/ InternationalLaw/Documents/Philip-Morris-Asia-Limited-Notice- of-Claim-27-June-2011.pdf.
Philip Morris Asia Ltd v Commonwealth UNCITRAL PCA Case No 2012-12 at .
Ukraine also initiated a dispute settlement but withdrew its dispute.
Above n 2, annex 1A (“Agreement on Technical Barriers to trade”) www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt.pdf Arts 2.1 and 2.2.
Above n 2, Art 16(1).
WTO Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Require- ments Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (28 June 2018) https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/ FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=246444, 246446,246445&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=TrueHasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True para 7.2172.
Above n 21, para 7.2236.
Above n 21, para 7.2245.
Above n 21, para 7.2260.
Above n 21, paras 7.2291–92.
Above n 21, para 7.2430.
Above n 21, para 7.2569.
Above n 21, para 7.2570.
Above n 21, para 7.2572.
Above n 21, para 7.2586.
Above n 21, para 7.2589.
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health WT/MIN(01)/Dec/2 (20 November 2001 adopted on 14 November 2001) www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.pdf.
Above n 21, para 7.2592.
Above n 21, para 7.2593.
WHO, Guidelines for implementation of Article 11 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Packaging and labelling of tobacco products), November 2008, www.who.int/fctc/guideline/article_11.pdf.
Above n 21, para 7.2604.

References: Art 20
 Art 8
 Art 20
 Art 8
 Art 20
 Art 16