Plain packaging is officially three years old today, and last week France took a significant step towards becoming the latest country to introduce legislation for the presentation of tobacco products. However, as the spread of plain packaging continues, pro-IP voices are getting lost in the mix, with the narrative framed as boiling down to ‘pro-health interests v big tobacco’.

This part of the website has now moved to the subscriber area. To read more, please pick an option below.

Register to access two articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

I look forward to reading the World Trademark Review e-mail updates every day. WTR provides a concise summary of noteworthy disputes and legislative issues around the world, as well as helpful country-specific overviews on trademark laws and practices.

Ruby A. Zefo
Director, Trademarks & Brands Legal
Intel Corporation

Benefits

Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.

Why subscribe?

Comments

Please log in or register to leave a comment.

RE: Plain packaging celebrates its third birthday as France green-lights brand-free tobacco packs

Octavio,

I beg to differ with your assertion that Intellectual property rights do not grant a ‘right to use’. While it is certainly true that IP rights are not absolute and must be viewed in relation to their social function, numerous rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union have confirmed that the subject matter of a trademark is, in particular, to guarantee to the owner that he has the exclusive right to use that trade mark for the purpose of putting a product on the market – para 44 Bristol-Myres Squibb and others v Paranova, Case C-427/93.

In her Opinion delivered on 6 April 2006 in Case C-348/04, Advocate General Sharpston concluded:

"Para 9 – The specific subject-matter of a trade mark thus has two components. First, there is the right to use the mark for the purpose of putting products protected by it into circulation for the first time in the EC, after which that right is exhausted. Second, there is the right to oppose any use of the trade mark which is liable to impair the guarantee of origin […]."

The need to grant protection to trademark use thus stems from the very function of trademarks, i.e. to distinguish goods and services in the course of trade. As Advocate General Jacobs concluded in his Opinion delivered on 20 September 2001 in Case C-2/00:

"Para 35 – […] Use by the proprietor is indeed a central and essential element of ownership. […] Use of a trade mark involves identifying the proprietor's goods or services as his own. Although perhaps so self-evident that it may not be specifically set out in trade mark legislation, that is the purpose for which trade marks exist […]."

Accordingly, the function and use of trade marks is recognized as the key rationale for trademark protection in the EU. This view finds further support in the principle of the unitary character of CTMs, i.e. a CTM enjoys the same protection, and is subject to the same restrictions, throughout the entire territory of the EU. This principle, also referred to in Article 1(2) of the CTMR, precludes Member States from interfering with the right to use a CTM as a result of domestic provisions, which I would argue, includes plain packaging law.

The flaw in the ‘plain packaging’ laws of France, Ireland and the United Kingdom is that they are a disproportionate and intolerable interference with the trademark rights of their owners, which impair the very substance those rights guarantee. By curtailing the right to use, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom have effectively abolished what Advocate General Jacobs called, the ‘central and essential element of ownership’.

Niall Tierney, on 05 Dec 2015 @ 14:00

RE: Plain packaging celebrates its third birthday as France green-lights brand-free tobacco packs

Dear Mr. Little,

Thank you for your update and summary.

I agree that it seems difficult to hold a dispassionate debate on the issues relating to the plain packaging of tobacco and -- perhaps -- other noxious products.

Studies and statistics submitted by each camp seem to offset and cancel each other out. Perhaps in time the conclusions will emerge more clearly. In the meantime, I believe a few points and facts could and should be recognized more widely. For instance:

1. Consumption of tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke are bad for human health. Is this basic point still challenged?

2. States and governments may be -- and usually are -- entrusted or mandated with advancing public health for their populations. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is a reality. It emerged as the result of a fundamental consensus among many States. The FCTC “has 168 Signatories, including the European Community, which makes it the most widely embraced treaties in UN history”. (FCTC Foreword) Is this not recognised?

3. The following legal point has been controversial, but I believe it shouldn’t be: Governments have a sovereign right to regulate commerce within their jurisdictions, by means of provisions adopted sovereignly under their constitutional or legislative procedures. This includes the power to ban, limit or otherwise regulate the distribution of goods and services, and a fortiori covers “encumbrances” such as requiring plain packaging for noxious products or banning certain forms of advertising (including the use of marks -- remember the advertising function of marks?).

4. Plain packaging and other limitations on the use of trademarks in commerce are NOT contrary to any multilateral intellectual property treaty, and certainly not contrary to the Paris Convention or the TRIPS agreement. It is widely recognized that intellectual property rights do not grant a ‘right to use’ or exploit the object of those rights, but rather a right to exclude others from such use.

Other noxious or dangerous products are already subject to regulation as regards their presentation and advertising in commerce. If more follow, so be it. Public health and the public interest should continue to prevail over the private interest of companies to sell more.

Octavio ESPINOSA, on 03 Dec 2015 @ 22:49

Share this article