SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Ten Questions About Internet Governance

On April 23 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance,” also known as “NETmundial” in an allusion to the global football event that will occur later in that country, will be convened. Juan Alfonso Fernández González of the Cuban Communications Ministry and a veteran of the UN internet governance meetings, raises 10 questions that need to be answered at NETmundial.


Latest Comments
  • These obscured negotiations appear to this reader ... »
  • The EU or the US are not the banana states for whi... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Ukraine WTO Trademark Dispute Vs. Australia Tests Public Health Measures

    Published on 14 March 2012 @ 7:21 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Ukraine yesterday filed a World Trade Organization dispute settlement case against Australia for its 2011 law requiring plain packaging on tobacco in an effort to address the severe public health problem related to its use. The case could represent an important measure of the power of trade interests versus public health decisions by governments.

    Ukraine argues that Australia’s law violates the 1994 WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which generally covers trade in goods.

    The dispute is number DS434 and it is expected to be available soon on the WTO website here.

    The Ukraine case filed on 13 March targets Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, its Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act 2011, and related regulations. Filing the case first means the two sides hold consultations to see if they can settle their differences on their own. The two sides have 60 days to settle the dispute bilaterally, after which the complainant can ask the establishment of a panel, which is done at a Dispute Settlement Body meeting.

    The issue was discussed among WTO members at the last meeting of the WTO Council on TRIPS (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 28 February 2012). At that meeting, countries restated positions they had taken in the past several TRIPS Council meetings, according to sources. Only Chile was said to have shifted positions, moving slightly more toward the Central America and Caribbean countries that have opposed regulations on tobacco out of economic interests.

    The minutes for past TRIPS Council meetings that include detailed explanations of positions are WTO documents IP/C/M/66 and IP/C/M/67.

    The World Health Organization has invited health and trade officials in Geneva missions to attend a workshop on 15 and 16 March on “trade-related issues relevant to implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control” (FCTC). The event aims “to promote the sharing of knowledge and information” among parties to the convention of tobacco-control measures taken pursuant to the convention. It also will “review ongoing trade and investment concerns in this area.” The event will include panels and available experts.

    The WHO also published in time for the meeting its Global Report on Mortality Attributable to Tobacco, available here.

    WHO has addressed the TRIPS Council on the global problem of smoking, and has said plain packaging is covered under recommendations of the agreed tobacco convention. The 2005 convention has 179 members.

    In a 2010 declaration agreed in Punta del Este, Uruguay, convention parties affirmed their “firm commitment to prioritize the implementation of health measures designed to control tobacco consumption in their respective jurisdictions” and their “right to define and implement national public health policies, pursuant to compliance … particularly with the WHO FCTC.”

    Australia’s Defence

    At the February TRIPS Council, sources said Australia again addressed questions about its new law passed on 21 November and expected to take effect on 1 October 2012 for Australian produced products, and 1 December 2012 for all products. The Australian legislation included amendments to extend implementation time, and provide two more weeks for retailers to finish selling their existing non-compliant packages. It also was amended to address a technical concern of tobacco companies to allow rounded corners to be used inside the top of cigarette packs.

    Australia also explained to the TRIPS Council the extensive research, analysis and consultation process that was conducted in the lead-up to the passage of the law. It said it is confident that as part of a broader initiative to address tobacco use, the new law will be effective in reducing smoking.

    Australia, which in other contexts is seen as one of the most vigorous nations on IP rights protections, restated its full commitment to international IPR obligations. It said the new law was amended to ensure trademark owners receive full protection for their trademarks and can register trademarks. Non-compliant packages will be allowed to imported and then repackaged before first sale.

    Countries that have spoken in favour of countries’ right to use flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement for public health purposes including tobacco control included Brazil, Chile (now shifting), China, India, the EU and Switzerland. Supporters of Australia were New Zealand, Norway and Uruguay.

    The 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health reinforced countries’ right to take public health measures on behalf of their public interest. Brazil and others have raised that as well as the Doha Declaration, and TRIPS Article 8, which it has said specifically authorises WTO members to adopt measures needed to protect public health and nutrition in addition to measures to promote the public interest in vital sectors for social, economic and technological development.

    Countries said to be in opposition to the Australian law include: Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.

    At the February TRIPS Council, the Dominican Republic again asserted the inconsistency of the Australian law with TRIPS, and arguing it would “destroy” the intellectual property rights and limit information for consumers. It noted the product is legal to sell in Australia, and that the registered marks, geographical indications and other elements of the package play an important role in providing information. It suggested other measures might be more viable to address the health concerns of tobacco.

    Industry Fuming

    The tobacco industry has already filed two lawsuits against Australia, one through a bilateral treaty between Hong Kong and Australia, and one within Australia.

    A tobacco industry representative told Intellectual Property Watch, “Australia’s plain package tobacco measure is a very tough challenge on tobacco industry and growers of tobacco all over the world. All eyes are now on the issue as it will be taken to WTO dispute settlement by the WTO members who do not share Australia’s approach towards tobacco regulation.”

    “The plain packaging restriction is of relevance to other industries, like alcohol, food and soft drinks, which may well be next on the list for this type of regulations,” the industry representative said. “The enforcement of the Australian measure will result in denial of trademark rights to tobacco industry which amounts to expropriation of assets and is incompatible with international trade and investment rules. This will have severe impact on the tobacco industry as a whole and growers of tobacco leaf for whom this activity is essential for their subsistence.”

    Ukraine, a tobacco producer, joined the WTO in 2008. Ukraine itself was in the past the target of actions for intellectual property rights violations by countries such as the United States, and it continues to be of concern.

    The plain packaging issue was discussed in TRIPS Council in February 2012, October 2011, and June 2011.

    It was discussed in the TBT Committee in November 2011 and June 2011.

    Rachel Marusak Hermann contributed to this story.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Ukraine WTO Trademark Dispute vs. Australia Tests Public Health Measures | Don't trade our lives away says:

      [...] Source: Intellectual Property Watch [...]

    2. Nuno Pires de Carvalho says:

      Dear Rachel and William,

      Your informative piece contains the following statement that reveals the basic misunderstanding that has obscured the debate over this issue: “Australia, which in other contexts is seen as one of the most vigorous nations on IP rights protections, restated its full commitment to international IPR obligations.” This sentence implies that Australia strongly protects IP, except in the field of trademarks for tobacco. This is not correct. In both the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 [TPPA], and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act 2011, there is not a shred of evidence that Australia has diminished the protection of tobacco trademarks. On the contrary, section 28 of the TPPA provides in the opposite direction: in spite of the measures restricting the use of tobacco trademarks, their registration and protection remain untouched. [This is compliant with Article 15.4 of TRIPS and is important for the purposes of Article 16.3, because Australia extends protection against dilution only in the case of registered well-known trademarks. See Section 120(3)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act 1995, as consolidated as of 14 January 2011.].
      The issue here is not one of protection – it is one of use. Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement is not about protection (or limitation of protection), but rather of use of the trademarks. So, here is the real issue: how far can WTO Members go when it comes to impose measures that limit the freedom of trademark owners to use their own trademarks? The answer is provided by Article 20 of TRIPS: they can go as far as it is justifiable. Please note that Article 20, by contrast with Article 8.1 (which also provides for the possibility of measures that may affect the use of IP rights), does not refer to the necessity of the measures. So, WTO Members, in imposing encumbrances on the use of trademarks, are not conditioned by reasons of necessity (necessity implies a link of cause and effect and thus is much more difficult to demonstrate when issues of public policy are at stake), but rather of justifiability.
      In this regard, I would draw your attention to Section 40(4) of the Industrial Property Act of Oman, of 2008: “(4) The Minister of Health may take measures to limit the use of marks with the purpose of facilitating the prescription of and the access to generic pharmaceutical products and medical devices, or with the purpose of discouraging the public consumption of goods that are deemed prejudicial to health provided such measures do not impair the use or effectiveness of trademarks used in relation to such good or service to distinguish goods of one undertaking from those of other undertaking.” Under the Omani law, the Minister of Health may prohibit the use of trademarks for tobacco products (among other products, like fast food). But, if he allows the use, he cannot take measures that impair their distinctiveness as compared to identical goods. This is, to my knowledge, the provision that best implements the spirit and the letter of Article 20 of TRIPS. The Omani statute can be found in IP-lex, in the WIPO website.

    3. Most-Read IP-Watch Stories Of 2012: India Pharma, Europe, ACTA, WIPO Technical Assistance, Gene Patents | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] Ukraine WTO Trademark Dispute Vs. Australia Tests Public Health Measures http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/03/14/ukraine-wto-trademark-dispute-vs-australia-tests-public-health-me… [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 157.55.32.113