ARTICLE
20 August 2012

High Court of Australia Rejects Plain Packaging Challenge

SF
Spruson & Ferguson

Contributor

Established in 1887, Spruson & Ferguson is a leading intellectual property (IP) service provider in the Asia-Pacific region, with offices in Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. They offer high-quality services to clients and are part of the IPH Limited group, which includes various professional service firms operating under different brands in multiple jurisdictions. Spruson & Ferguson is an incorporated entity owned by IPH Limited, with a strong presence in the industry.
Under the provisions of the TPP Act, manufacturers of tobacco products are required to sell the goods in plain packaging.
Australia Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the cases of JT International SA V Commonwealth Of Australia and British American Tobacco Australasia Limited & Ors v Commonwealth Of Australia [2012] HCA 30 the High Court of Australia has dismissed a challenge to the validity of the Federal Government's Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) ("the TPP Act").

Under the provisions of the TPP Act, manufacturers of tobacco products would be required to sell these goods in plain packaging, described as being dark olive brown in colour. The brand name will appear on the package but only in a standard printed form.

The TPP Act was introduced as part of a suite of measures intended to reduce the national smoking rate in Australia. The Government's objective is to try to reduce rates to 10% by 2018 and halve the smoking rate of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders.

The tobacco companies sought to rely on Section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, which provides Parliament with the powers to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws". The companies argued that the provisions of the TPP Act were invalid because they represented an acquisition of their property, namely their intellectual property including trade marks, other than on just terms and without proper compensation. In response, the Government argued that it was only trying to regulate what appears on the boxes and was not acquiring any trade marks.

In reaching this decision, at least a majority of the court have decided that the provisions of the TPP Act are not contrary to section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and have made relevant orders. The full reasons for the High Court's decision will be published in the near future.

Developments in this case and the High Court's decision have been closely monitored by other foreign governments that are interested in passing similar legislation, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong and some states in the United States. The TPP Act is due to be fully implemented from December 1, 2012. The High Court has ordered the tobacco companies to pay the Federal Government's legal costs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More