Timeline of events
related to plain packaging and other package reforms
December 20 2011
Philip Morris Australia files a Writ of Summons against the
Australian Government alleging that the plain packaging law
infringes its trademark and property rights.
December 15, 2011
Japan Tobacco files a Writ of Summons against the Australian
Government alleging that the plain packaging law infringes its
trademark rights.
December 1, 2011
British American Tobacco initiates proceedings in Australia's High
Court to test the validity of the law as it relates to property
rights of two brands, Winfield and Dunhill.
Press release
Imperial Tobacco similarly initiates proceedings.
November 21, 2011
Philip Morris announces that in addition to a suit for arbitration
under Australia's Investment Treaty treaty Hong Kong, it will pursue
claims under Australian law.
Press release
November 21, 2011
Australia's lower House of Representatives approves amended timeline
to the Plain Packaging Bill. The law as passed.
November10, 2011
Australia's Senate passes the set of laws to implement plain
packaging. Because the implementation date was amended, the
laws must also be re-approved by the lower House.
November 2, 2011
Australia's Health Minister, Nicolas Roxon, announces that the
implementation of plain packaging will be delayed until December 1,
2012 as a result of delays in the Senate review of the bill.
October 14, 2011
BAT threatens to suspend supply of cigarettes if Australian
implementation date not changed.
Press release
August 24, 2011
Australia's lower house approves the two tobacco plain packaging bills.
August 22, 2011
Australia's House of Representatives' Health and Aging Committee tabled its
advisory report into the legislation.
July 6, 2011
the
Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco
Plain Packaging) 2011 are introduced in the
Australian Parliament, in the House of Representatives. "This world
first initiative sends a clear message that the glamour is gone from
smoking,” Minister for Health and Ageing
Nicola Roxon said.
June 29, 2011
Philip Morris International threatens it will sue Australian
government under a bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong.
June 15-16, 2011
Australia's proposal for Plain Packaging is discussed at the June
15-16
meeting of WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade Committee.
Fourteen countries raise trade concerns, arguing "that such
regulations could create an unnecessary barrier to trade" and that
plain packaging is "more trade restrictive than necessary".
June 7, 2011
At the
spring meeting of the the WTO TRIPS council, plain packaging is
challenged as being a violation of trademark rights.
May 26, 2011
Australian Health Minister defends plain packaging on national news
program.
ABC Lateline
May 2, 2011
Belgium member of parliament, Dr. Catherine Fonck, tables a bill to
require plain packaging.
Proposed law
April 7, 2011
Australia
notifies the World Trade Organization of its intention to
implement plain packaging.
April 7, 2011
New Zealand Associate Health Minister says "it is my expectation
that New Zealand will inevitably follow their [Australia's] lead and
look to introduce the plain packaging of tobacco products."
News report
April 7, 2011
Australian Government releases draft legislation for plain packaging
Consultation document
Draft bill
March 14, 2011
New Zealand government responds to Maori Affairs Committee say it
may align its labelling with Australia.
Response to Committee
March 9, 2011
UK government releases a tobacco control plan which repeats its
intention to consider plain packaging.
Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Tobacco Control Plan for England
Belgium's Health Minister expresses support for plain packaging in response to a question in parliament.
(unofficial
translation)
"With plain packaging, only the brand name is displayed in a
standard format. The impact of such labelling to reduce the
attractiveness [of products] and increase the imapcat of heatlh
warning messages, espcially for young new smokers, has been shown in
several studies. ...I continue to
support such measures, including at the European level."
Transcript
of remarks
December 7, 2010
French parliamentarian, Yves Bur, introduces a bill to
implement plain packaging
Bill 3005.
Proposition de loi visant à l’instauration d’un paquet de
cigarettes neutre et standardisé
November 30, 2010
U.K. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley issued a policy document
suggesting that "the government will look at whether the plain
packaging of tobacco products could be an effective way to
reduce the number of young people taking up smoking and to help
those who are trying to quit smoking."
U.K. white Paper "Healthy Lives, Healthy People" can be found
here
November 3, 2010
New Zealand Maori Affairs Committee recommends plain packaging
in its report to government.
Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the
consequences of tobacco use for Māori: Report of the Māori
Affairs Committee
September 24, 2010
European Union initiates public consultation on revision of its
2001 tobacco directive and offers plain packaging as an option.
Information on consultation can be found here.
April 29, 2010
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Announces that plain
packaging will be required on packages sold in Australia after
January 2012.
Press release.
1 September 2009
Australian Health
Minister releases the
report of the National Preventative Health Taskforce
which
recommends plain packaging as part of a comprehensive package of
measures to make Australia the healthiest country in the world
by 2020.
August 20, 2009
Australian Senator Steve Fielding introduces a bill to require
plain packaging of tobacco products.
Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs)
Bill 2009 .
Submissions to legislative committee can be viewed
here.
Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control adopt guidelines
on advertising and package labelling that recommend the use of
plain packaging.
September 8, 2008
European Communities Trade Mark Association
responds to UK consultation and says that plain packaging “would
involve various violations of treaty obligation... [and] is contrary
to the harmonised EU and international systems of trade mark
protection, including in particular Articles 15(4), 20 and 8(1) of
the World Trade Organisation's agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Matters ('TRIPS') and Articles 6quinquies and
7 of the Paris Convention.
As noted above, this was a matter of some concern when the
matter was considered in Canada.”
Japan Tobacco responds
to the U.K. consultation paper saying that plain packaging would be
“in breach” of TRIPS and the Paris Convention.
September 5, 2008
British American Tobacco responds to the U.K.
consultation paper saying that “the government’s power to introduce
plain packaging is constrained by law… also by international law,
including the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
September 8, 2008
Philip Morris responds to the U.K.
consultation paper saying that “plain packaging will squarely
conflict with” TRIPS and the Paris Convention.
The U.K. government launches a consultation on
“The Future of Tobacco Control” and “seeks views from stakeholders
and members of the public on the potential for plain packaging of
tobacco products.”
November 27, 2007
European Commission identifies plain packaging
as a measure to be explored:
“In
order to decrease the smoking initiation and to protect EU consumers
on equal basis in all Member States the introduction of generic
(black & white) standardised packaging for all tobacco products
could be explored as a possibility to reduce the attractiveness.”
European
Commission, “Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee: Second Report on the Application of the Tobacco
Products directive”.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0754:FIN:EN:PDF
February 2002
Philip Morris submits comments on proposed ban on ‘light’ and ‘mild’
saying that “banning such terms on tobacco packaging would violate
Canada’s obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(“NAFTA”), the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (“TBT”) and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property (“TRIPS”).
February 1, 2002
On behalf of tobacco companies, the U.S. National Institute of
Standards and Technology writes the Canadian GATT Enquiry point to
ask for a delay in the deadline for comments in the ban on light and
mild.
December 1, 2001
Health Canada publishes a Notice of Intent in the Canada Gazette,
proposing a ban on the terms “light” and “mild”, but not on
synonyms, or the use of colours or numbers to suggest one product is
less harmful than another.
September 2001
Japan Tobacco International filed a complaint
in mid-September 2001 with the European Court of First instance
claiming that the ban on ‘light’ and ‘mild’ was a violation of
intellectual property laws.
The law came into force, as
predicted, on September 30, 2003.
Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
products - Commission statement
February 2, 2001
EC Director General M.P. Carl writes BAT to
note “the very strong concerns” about the Canadian regulations and
to inform them “that our conclusion is that there is little action
that the commission feels able to undertake to address these problem
directly. Our initial assessment is that the measures are probably
compatible with WTO rules.”
October 13, 2000
BAT writes to the EC to complain about
Canada’s new health warning messages
August 2000
Japan Tobacco submits that the FCTC would
violate IP laws if it banned descriptors.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kkm55a99
June 16, 2000
Hong Kong attorneys provide legal opinion that
Private Member’s bill to amend Hong Kong’s smoking act is a
violation of intellectual property agreements.
March 29, 2000
Confederation of European Community Cigarette
Manufacturers Ltd .briefs the EU in response to the proposed ban on
light and mild and claims it is a violation of TRIPS and Paris
Convention in the case of names like “Mild Seven”.
January 22, 2000
Canada gazettes proposals to implement 50%
graphic warning messages on cigarette packages.
2000:
British-American Tobacco's Submission to the
WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control warned that “ The
WHO's proposals to ban tobacco advertising and descriptors such as
'Lights', could infringe commercial and intellectual property rights
guaranteed in international law and could clash with provisions
embodied in national constitutions protecting freedom of speech.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/frl55a99
August 16, 1999
CTMC says that a new (50%) Canadian health
warnings are a violation of international trade law. “They would
thus violate several of Canada's treaty obligations undertaken under
Chapter 3cl and XVII of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Such violations would expose Canada to legitimate and
well-founded complaints under World Trade Organization agreements
such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Paris Convention for the Protection
of Industrial Property and under the NAFTA .They would also expose
Canada to obligatory and binding arbitration under Chapter Xl of the
NAFTA to set the compensation due to the owners of those
trademarks.”
August 1999
Ceylon Tobacco Company informs its government
that the proposed national authority on tobacco and alcohol act that
require information “would raise serious issues under Article – of
the Sri Lankan Constitution as well as under a number of
international agreements to which Sri Lanka is a signatory,
including the Paris Convention.”
1999
Health Canada includes plain packaging as an option for restrictions
on tobacco promotions, but regulations never developed further.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fir17d00/pdf
March, 1999
Philip Morris and BAT submit to the Australian
consultation on a new national strategy for tobacco control, and
warns that generic packaging would be a violation of IP rights
(cites government response in 1997).
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/drx42c00
October 19, 1998
Germany’s federal health ministry lodged an
appeal for the annulment of EU Directive 98/43 (advertising) as does
Salamander GA.
Salamander argues that directive is non-compliant with TRIPS, WTO
and Paris Convention.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vlf90d00
April 1988
The journal ADDICTION
publishes a paper by Becky Freeman, Simon Chapman and Mathew
Rimmer reviewing the evidence supporting the implementation of Plain
Packaging and the consistency of this measure with the FCTC
1998
Book on plain packaging, edited by John Luik
is published with funding from all of the major multinational
tobacco companies. Six chapters are written or co-written by
Canadians.
December 10, 1997
EC DG Beserer replies to BAT to suggest that
while Thailand was being asked to provide notice of TBT, that they
did not see a problem with compliance. “Article 39.2 of the TRIPS
agreement only aims to prevent information from being disclosed to,
acquired by, or used by others without consent of the lawful owner.
Article 39.2 does not deal with the question whether or not a
Government is allowed to ask for information, e.g. for the grant of
marketing approval of certain products.”
October 30, 1997
BAT writes EC Commission DG Johannes Beseler
to complain about Thailand’s Ingredient disclosure
September 1997
Australian government formally replies to
Senate Committee Report: “In response to the mounting interest In
generic packaging, the Commonwealth obtained advice from the
Attorney General's Department on the legal and constitutional
barriers to generic packaging. This advice Indicates that the
Commonwealth does possess powers under the Constitution to introduce
such packaging but that any attempt to use these powers to introduce
further tobacco control legislation needs to be considered in the
context of the increasingly critical attention being focussed on the
necessity, appropriateness, justification and basis for regulation
by such bodies as the Office of Regulatory Review, the High Court,
and Senate Standing Committees. In addition, further regulation
needs to be considered in the context of Australia's international
obligations regarding free trade under the General Agreement on
Tariff and Trade (GATT), and our obligations under International
covenants such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).”
February 13, 1997
Lithuania Constitutional Court notes that a
ban on alcohol advertising does not violate Paris Convention. “The
Constitutional Court notes that the disputed laws do not contain any
norms which imposed direct prohibition to make use of trade marks
…there are no legal grounds to assert that the right to a trade mark
has priority over people’s health.”
December 6, 1996
David Dingwall tells parliamentary committee
that companies must be allowed to display their trademark names in
accordance with Canada’s constitution and international law.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/Archives/committees352/
sant/evidence/25_96-12-06/sant25_blk101.html
December 15, 1995
Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee releases
its (160 page) report. “The Committee considers that, on the basis
of the evidence received, there is not sufficient evidence to
recommend that tobacco products be sold in generic packaging.”
[
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uxq81b00
December 11, 1995
Health Canada releases a “Blueprint
to protect the health of Canadians,” a framework for renewed
legislation that makes scant mention of plain packaging.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tyd24a99
September 21, 1995
Supreme Court of Canada strikes down
Tobacco Products Control Act.
July 24, 1995
Australian health minister Carmen Lawrence
rejects the idea of plain packaging on international trade and legal
grounds. “A spokeswoman for the Minister of Health, Dr. Lawrence,
said this would breach constitutional requirements for free trade.
“Unfortunately, it is just not feasible,” the spokeswoman said “We
would have to buy the tobacco companies’ trademarks and that would
cost us hundreds of millions of dollars”.
July 17, 1995
Australian Medical Association says it will be
pushing for Plain Packaging.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mrb81a99
May 31, 1995
BAT writes Thai government to signal
Ingredient disclosure regulation as a breach of intellectual
property.
May 18, 1995
Health Canada releases its expert report “When
packages can’t speak.”
Industry responds by repeating trade concerns.
March 14, 1995
Tobacco Institute of Hong Kong tells Hong Kong
government that its proposed Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment)
Bill 1996 would diminish commercial value of trademarks and may
violate Paris Convention, GATT and TRIPS.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dpj44a99
February 1995
BAT’s Australian subsidiary, WD & HO Wills
tells the Australian Senate that generic packaging would violate
international law and the Australian constitution.
January 18, 1995
Washington State Senator Mike Heavey proposes
legislation to require plain packaging.(Senate Bill 5300). PM
International provides materials used in Canada to combat “Seattle
Plain Packaging Proposal”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uso67c00
January 12, 1995
The U.K. companies meet with the Department of
Health to discuss forthcoming legislation on labelling and are
pleased to hear the public servants and Minister are on their side
and “keen to kill off the Lewis Bill at an early stage.” They also
note that the UK is blocking the EU directive on advertising. BAT
marshals IP arguments against Terry Lewis’ bill on tobacco
labelling.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xtq25a99
November 18, 1994
Health Canada tables response to Standing
Committee report, deferring decision until “the findings of an
Expert Panel on the role of genetic packaging in reducing the
inducement to purchase and use tobacco products will be taken into
account, as will the international trade, contraband and economic
implications of generic packaging… The legal ramifications of
generic packaging must also be considered.”
October 26, 1994
Plain Pack Working Group meets.
October 1994
9th World Conference on Tobacco or Health passes a resolution in
favour of plain packaging of cigarettes.
September 21, 1994
International Chamber of Commerce, after a
request from BAT,
writes Canada’s trade minister, Roy Maclaren, to repeat the opinion
that Canada’s obligations under the Paris Convention stood in the
way of plain packaging.
August 31, 1994
WIPO tells Ralph Oman that Carla Hill’s opinion is wrong.
Aug 5, 1994
Former U.S. Register of Copyrights, Ralph
Oman, writes WIPO and sends May 3 opinion from Carla Hills.
July 21, 1994
David Bacon presents an analysis of that there
is “little joy” in trade agreements for tobacco companies to BAT’s
General Managers.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hpp34a99[
July 6, 1994
BAT circulates WIPO response to other
companies, saying “I
anticipate that the reason he had not replied earlier was that he
did not feel he had anything helpful to say. Certainly his letter
does not take us further.”
July 5 1994
WIPO tells BAT that there is the Paris
Convention does not contain any obligation to the effect that the
use of a registered trademark must be permitted.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/awd28a99
July 4, 1994
BAT Executive Directors and Heads of
Department are briefed by Purdy Crawford on plain packaging
developments in Canada.
June 21, 1994
Plain Pack Group meets.
June 21, 1994
Canadian Standing Committee on Health presents its report on plain
packaging “Towards Zero Consumption.”
June 1, 1994
John Luik is engaged by PPWG as project
manager on plain package book.
June 16, 1994[
Wills succeeds in getting Australian Office of
Regulation Review to demand a review of the new Australian
regulations on labelling.
May 25, 1995
New Zealand Public Health Commission
pre-releases a summary of responses to its discussion paper, noting
that “Several submissions support all tobacco products being sold in
plain packaging, white background with standardised black
lettering,” but that opposition to improved warnings includes the
view that “the amendments will be in breach of relevant trade-mark
conventions.”
May 11, 1994
BAT’s high level tobacco strategy group is
told that the Plain Pack Group has found “little joy” in trade
agreements and that they “afford little protection” from plain
package laws.
May 14, 1994
Canadian Standing Committee on Health ends public hearings on plain
packaging.
May 10, 1994
Former U.S. deputy trade commissioners Julius Katz and former U.S.
trade representative Carla Hills (on behalf of Philip Morris and RJ
Reynolds) tells the Standing Committee that Plain Packaging would be
an infringement of GATT, NAFTA and the Paris Convention.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mrm97c00
May 5, 1994
Philip Morris, which also owned Kraft Foods
and other consumer good companies, threatens economic retaliation
for plain packaging, telling Commons Committee that “If Canada
adopts legislation in total disregard of internationally recognized
trademark rights, this would be a significant consideration in any
new investment decisions… [Philip Morris is] reluctant to allow its
trademarks to be subject to a Government which would expropriate
these valuable property rights in disregard of its international
treaty obligations.”
May 5, 1994
EC rejects appeal from companies to file GATT
complaint with respect to Australian warning labels.
May 3, 1994
US/CAN
Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative, provides
opinion that plain packaging contravenes NAFTA, and Paris
Convention.
May 1994
National Intellectual Property Section of the Canadian Bar
Association testifies that plain packaging violates international
law.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cna36a99
April 29, 1994
BAT provides Standing Committee with opinions
by Lovell White Durrant that plain packaging is an infringement of
TRIPS.
April 27, 1994
International Trade Mark Association (Richard Berman, president)
submits to Standing Committee its opinion that trademarks have
value. Notably, makes
no reference to protection of trademarks under international law.
April 19, 1994
Plain Pack Group has its 4th meeting.
April 16, 1994
Canada signs new WTO agreements.
April 15, 1994
BAT writes again to WIPO to request reply.
April 12, 1994
Rothmans circulates to other companies a note
on “International Trade Aspects of Labelling”, which concludes “The
international trade argument by itself will not however be
sufficient to ward off the threat of plain packs.”
April 12, 1994
Canadian Standing Committee on Health begins hearings on plain
packaging.
April 6, 1994
International Trade Mark Association is asked
by Rothmans to participate in Canadian hearings on plain packaging.
March 30, 1994
Wills issues press release that warning regulations “are a clear
breach of the recently signed GATT agreement,” but internally admit
that their claims are not defensible (“Regrettably, there would be
legal difficulties if we were required to take the matter as far as
the courts, however.”)
March 29, 1994
Australia gazettes regulations for national-wide regulations on pack
labelling.
March 24, 1994
Canadian House of Commons Health Committee opens up hearings on
plain packaging and holds a press conference.
March 25, 1994
Ed Lang, chair of RJR-Macdonald writes
Prime Minister
Chretien to warn againt plain packaging. Raises several concerns,
including GATT/NAFTA.
March 25, 1994
On behalf of the Plain Pack Group, BAT
solicitor writes to ask WIPO whether plain packaging is an
infringement of trade mark rights.
March 14, 1994
The Plain Pack Group has its third meeting.
March 4, 1994
Supreme Court of Canada denies the industries
request for a stay on health warnings during the time that the
challenge to the Tobacco
Products Control Act was heard.
February 8, 1994
Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien announces a
reduction in federal tobacco taxes (and encourages provinces to
follow suit). A review of plain packaging is promised as a way of
compensating for the impact of tax reductions.
January 1994
BAT’s Australian subsidiary tells a government
inquiry that generic packaging is contrary to “intellectual
properties and rights advocated by GATT.”
January 6, 1994
British MP, Ian Mills advises Rothmans on how to influence
parliamentarians against packaging reform (Terry Lewis, MP was
poised to introduce bill to improve labelling).
January 1, 1994
North American Free Trade Agreement goes into effect.
1994
US Institute of Medicine report “Growing Up Tobacco Free” recommends
plain packaging be considered.
November 30, 1993
The Centre for Health Promotion, University of
Toronto, publishes a report “Effects of Plain Packaging on the image
of tobacco products among youth.”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ypl33d00
November 1993
Australia establishes an Industry Commission
to inquire about “The Tobacco Growing and Manufacturing Industries.”
November 29, 1993
Industry “Plain Pack Group” holds its second meeting.
September 30, 1993
Australian state of Victoria gazettes
packaging regulations in line with EU, as the tobacco companies had
encouraged its premier, Jeff Kennett, to do. Subsequently, the
Australian federal Health Minister says that Special Commonwealth
legislation will be used to establish July 1993 proposed labelling.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xil43a99
September 1993
Tobacco Institute circulates its preliminary
submission to the Public Health Commission report, saying: “The PHC
is wrong to propose the appropriation by Government of intellectual
property as such an appropriation would be contrary to international
trade conventions to which New Zealand is a signatory.”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wwf00a99
September 22, 1993
First meeting of the inter-company Plain Pack
Working Group, also known as the Plain Pack Group (PPWG/PPG).
July 26, 1993
British Consulate (Vice Consul, Commercial –
Hughes) sends Australian companies the response he has received from
this government that the Pendleton view of their labelling rights
would require “several very large imaginative leaps.”
July 15, 1993
Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett (who is being
courted to support smaller EU size warnings) meets with BAT
officials in London.
July 14, 1993
New Zealand Public Health Commission provides
the New Zealand Tobacco Institute with a draft of a proposed tobacco
policy paper “Smoke-Free New Zealand 2000” which proposes “varied
warnings, packet redesign and plain packaging.”[32]
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elf48a99
July 14, 1993
Australian companies strategize to persuade one Australian state to
adopt the smaller EU standard, and then shift manufacturing to that
state. If this fails
they see “using GATT procedures and technicalities it is possible to
delay the implementation of the MCDS proposal. “
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/akm33a99
July 8, 1993
Australian Ministerial Council on Drug
Strategy backs down on labelling proposal of April 1992 and now
proposes 25% of the front, 33% of the back and a side panel.
June 4, 1993
Tony Wood of Australia’s Rothmans branch
reports that Canada has used the “GATT weapon” to “slow down their
Phase II Regulations by as much as 75 days.”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/grs48a99
June 2 1993
Rothmans writes UK Department of Trade and EC
Commission to encourage them to ask for Australia’s TBT notification
on package warnings “null and void”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hrs48a99
May 13, 1993
UK Consul General in Australia writes DTI to
enquire about “claims by Wills and Rothmans that Australian
proposals to alter the requirements for cigarette package labelling
may be in contravention of Australia’s GATT obligations.”
May 11, 1993
Tobacco Institute of Australia outlines its
“Taurus Strategy” to fight warnings and notes “The industry in
Australia must, therefore, focus its attention increasingly on
international developments in the area of GATT/TRIPS.”
May 1993
Rothmans international proposes that the
multinational companies form a global industry committee to address
packaging and labelling issues.
May 5, 1993
EU GATT liaison informs Canada that proposed
September 1 implementation date for new warning labels is too short
and that it will be “virtually impossible” for European
manufacturers to meet the deadline.
May 1, 1993.
The Tobacco institute of New Zealand outlines its strategy for
“protection of intellectual property” by treating it as
“expropriation of Intellectual Property and contested politically on
that basis.”
29 April 1993
Canada agrees to longer comment period
for warnings gazetted in March.
April 21, 1993
Australian tobacco companies solicit opinion
from law professor Michael Pendleton to override their own
solicitors’ advice that plain packaging is not an infringement of
intellectual property laws.
April 19, 1993
EU GATT liaison requests Canada provide more
time to comment on warning labels.
April 8, 1993
Canada files a notice at TBT of its intention to change warning
labels.
April 8, 1993
Rothmans UK describes a “slim chance of using
the GATT mechanism for consultation in order to delay proceedings”
on Canadian health warning messages.
April 2, 1993
Philip Morris US head office recommends to
Australian companies a GATT challenge to labelling from countries
which export tobacco to Australia to challenge at GATT the labelling
process.
March 19, 1993
Canada gazettes
proposals to increase size of health warnings (from about 20% to 25%
and including a border which increases the total area to about 33%)
and move them to the top of the pack.
January 22, 1993
Wills New Zealand writes BAT UK to outline its
approach to plain packaging.
January 6, 1993
Canadian Cancer Society releases report on Plain packaging showing
that it would break, or substantially weaken, the link between the
package and other promotions.
December 1992
Western Australia gazettes proposed
regulations based on April announcement for warnings that cover 100%
of the rear panel. Proposed implementation date is 1 July 1993.
October 1992
The European Smoking agency, BASP, puts out a call for plain
packaging.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xxd28a99
1992
EU Labelling Standard comes into force.
Warnings must cover 4% of
the package surface.
October 23, 1992
Australia files a notice with GATT of intention to change
regulations on the labelling of tobacco products.
July 22, 1992
Wills Australia writes Peter Hughes, Vice
Consul (Commercial) at the British Consulate General to protest the
MCDS labelling proposals this “represent a major interference with
the proprietors’ rights to use these marks and is a radical
departure from international practice. “
August 6, 1992
Wills Australia writes BAT to ask for help in
blocking new health warnings and informs that they have received
advice that the proposals are
not in breach of the
Paris Convention on Industrial policy.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bim33a99
April 1992
The Australian Centre for Behavioural Research
in Cancer (CBRC) publishes a report “Health Warnings and Contents
Labelling on Tobacco Products” including a recommendation for
standard/plain packaging.
April 15, 1992
The Australian Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (composed of
health ministers) proposes large new warnings and asks for a report
on plain packaging.
October 1991
In response to the government green paper, “The
Health of the Nation:A consultative document for Health in England",
U.K. ASH issues a manifesto for tobacco control that includes
plain packaging as a recommendation.
October 27, 1990
New Zealand General Election. Labour defeated. National Party
(leader Jim Bolger) elected.
August 28, 1990
New Zealand's
Smokefree Environments Act
receives Royal Assent.
Plain packaging was referred to during committee review, but not
included in law.
April 1990
Swedish lawyer professor, Ulf Bernitz has an
article published in the European Intellectual Property Review.
“Logo licensing of tobacco products – Can it be Prohibited”
concluding “such bans incompatible with long established principles
of international trade mark law.”
September 1989
In response to a request from New Zealand’s
Toxic Substances Board, its principal Medical Officer, Dr. Murray
Laugesen, prepares a policy paper “Tobacco promotion through product
packaging.”
May 1989
On the eve of the release of the New Zealand
Toxic Substances Board Report "Health or Tobacco An End to Tobacco
Advertising and Promotion," a newly formed New Zealand Coalition
Against Tobacco Advertising and Promotion announces it will press
for ‘generic’ packaging of cigarettes.
1989-1990
University of Otago (NZ) researchers Park
Beede, Rob Lawson and Mike Shepherd produce a study on “the
promotional impact of cigarette packaging”
January 1988
National Council on Tobacco or Health and the Non Smoker’s Rights
Association recommend to the committee reviewing Canada’s first
tobacco control law, the
Tobacco Products Control Act, that they include in the law
measures that will allow for plain or generic packaging.
June 1987
Canadian Medical Association President, Jake
Dyck, calls on federal government to require “tobacco products be
sold in plain, standard-size packages that state: ‘This product is
injurious to your health’.”
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jxd28a99
June 1986
Canadian Medical Association annual general
meeting supports motion of Dr. Gerry Karr in favour of plain
packaging.