Tag Archives: Plain packaging

Trademark

Surrogate Advertisements: The dark side of Trade marks? [Part II]


In Part I, I looked at the definition of surrogate advertising and relevant laws pertaining to it. In this Part, I explore the role of the judiciary and the question of trademark rights vis-à-vis surrogate advertisements. Role of the Judiciary In 1999, the Voluntary Health Association of India filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court to seek a ban on the sponsorship of the Indian cricket team by the Wills brand of cigarettes manufactured by ITC. According to the PIL, the…


Read More »
Trademark

Surrogate Advertisements: The dark side of Trade marks? [Part I]


Advertisements are made for one simple reason: to portray the product in question in a good light and make it appealing and irresistible for prospective customers. Where profit is the only motive, there is no place for cold hard facts or objective truths. Whether we believe that soup powders have “the goodness of real vegetables” or that a certain telecom brand can unilaterally solve our country’s problems, we can only point fingers at advertisements for our mistaken beliefs. Advertisements have…


Read More »
Trademark

Government contemplates a ban on foreign investment through the licensing route in the Tobacco sector


According to reports, the Union Cabinet is considering a proposal to introduce a complete ban on all foreign investments in the tobacco sector. The Commerce and Industry Ministry has forwarded the final cabinet note for the Cabinet’s consideration, keeping in mind the views of the Health and Finance ministries. This move comes after the ban on FDI in cigarette manufacturing introduced by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the DIPP in 2010. This ban was considered to be one…


Read More »
Trademark

Plain Packaging and Investor-State Disputes: Part II


  Picking up from my previous post, where I had examined Uruguay’s victory over Philip Morris in light of other successful plain packaging regulations; I now delve into the merits of the Philip Morris-Uruguay award, as well as examine the question of expropriation of trademark rights. For background reading on this issue, we have widely covered both International as well as Indian developments in plain packaging laws in the past. More specific to plain packaging in light of Investor State…


Read More »
Trademark

Plain Packaging and Investor-State Disputes: Uruguay wins monumental victory against Philip Morris: Part I


On the 8th of July, Uruguay won (links to: the award, and a summary of the case) a hard-fought battle in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) proceeding brought by Philip Morris before the ICSID Tribunal. This is a decision of immense importance not only for Uruguay, but also for other countries that are currently considering plain packaging policies for tobacco products. The ICSID Tribunal upheld Uruguay’s regulations on public health and plain packaging, and even directed Philip Morris to pay…


Read More »
Trademark

Plain Packaging: A Reality for India?


There have been some interesting new developments in the already controversial plain packaging issue. Simply put, this controversy revolves around the proposal to introduce bland, colourless packaging for cigarettes and other tobacco products with just the name of the brand in plain text, accompanied by a large graphic health warning. This is done in order to make these products less attractive to young people. Read more about the plain packaging issue here and here. Plain Packaging PIL Recently, an Allahabad…


Read More »
Trademark

SpicyIP Tidbit: Plain Packaging Packaged in a Notification?


The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India recently issued a notification introducing a requirement that the pictorial and textual statutory warnings that are to be placed on the carton must now cover 85% of the display area of the package. The notification, that amends the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling Rules), 2008 states that the pictorial warning must cover at least 60% of the area and the textual warning 25% percent of the area…


Read More »