Search Results

. 3 This prophecy came to pass with the recent handing down of the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel decision (Panel Report) in relation to Australia’s plain tobacco packaging measures. 4 Moreover, at least four other major legal developments have further weakened tobacco companies’ legal

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

and colour) for the inclusion of brand and variant names. 2 These prohibitions mean that trademark owners cannot use their tobacco trademarks on tobacco packaging, except for word marks falling within permitted inclusions such as brand names. 3 These specifications operate together with requirements

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

-off for a host State, as shown in various cases like the controversies surrounding Australia’s Tobacco Packaging Act. The design of the BITs and ISDS, in their current forms, is far from satisfactory. Reform proposals have been tabled and debated extensively among academics, civil societies, practitioners

In: Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, Volume 36, (2018)

’) 8 (paras 9–11). By comparison, Australia’s ‘plain’ or standardised tobacco packaging scheme (fully implemented from the end of 2012) mandates the colour of packages in the areas not covered by health warnings (‘drab dark brown’), preventing the use of promotional logos, images, symbols, colours

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

brand, (thereby banning tobacco descriptions such as “light”, “mild”, “gold” and “blue” on the basis that they are misleading to consumers); (2) a requirement that tobacco packages include “pictograms” with graphic images of the health consequences of smoking (such as cancerous lungs); and (3) a mandate

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

marketing activities through cigarette packaging since the their rights to use trademarks for marketing will be severely restricted by these regulations. To this end, transnational tobacco companies either made a threat 3 or actively took legal challenges against States implemented tobacco packaging

In: Brill Open Law

. ‘Wiping the slate clean’ is not likely to succeed by tinkering with the arbitration regime alone – though it may be possible that the radical nature of the challenges to public power it poses may act as a catalyst for more wide-ranging critiques. With its well-known claims against the tobacco packaging

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

prohibited, whether such products were manufactured for export or domestic consumption (to reduce the possibility of the measure being undermined by illegal re- importation). Secondly, Article 5 imposes certain labelling requirements, involving a certain proportion of the surface area of tobacco

In: Tilburg Law Review

in International Investment Agreements’ (2012) 15(3) JIEL 871; Sebastian Wurzberger and Andrew D Mitchell, ‘Boxed in? Australia’s Plain Tobacco Packaging Initiative and International Investment Law’ (2011) 27 Arb Int’l 623; Andrew D Mitchell and Tania Voon, ‘Time to Quit? Assessing International

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

the purpose of its measures is to implement the obligations under the FCTC. The warnings on tobacco packages should be 50% or more of the principal display areas but shall be no less than 30% of the principal display areas, is the requirement of the FCTC. The other two measures are also on the basis

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade