Find decisions by:

One or more of these keywords

1099 decisions

United States

Dec 7, 2022

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Several tobacco manufacturers, distributors, and retailers challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) March 2020 graphic health warning

Several tobacco manufacturers, distributors, and retailers challenged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) March 2020 graphic health warning rule on First Amendment grounds. Under the challenged rule, cigarette packaging and advertisements would be required to display graphic health warnings covering 50% and 20%, respectively. While this challenge was pending, the effective date of the rule was postponed several times.

In this ruling, the judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the rule is invalid under the First Amendment.

More Details
or

United States

Dec 6, 2022

United States v. Philip Morris USA, et al.

In 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the major cigarette manufacturers and

In 1999, the United States filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the major cigarette manufacturers and related trade organizations alleging that defendants, while acting as an enterprise, fraudulently misled American consumers for decades about the risks and dangers of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In 2006, the court found that defendants violated civil provisions of RICO and that there was a reasonable likelihood that defendants would continue to violate RICO in the future. On appeal, the district court’s findings were upheld, in part, vacated, in part, and remanded, in part, to the district court. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both sides in the case in June 2010, the district court began to implement the 2006 final order.

As a means of preventing future RICO violations, the district court ordered the tobacco companies to issue corrective statements on five topics in which they had misled the public, including the adverse health effects of smoking and the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine. The tobacco industry fought the point-of-sale corrective statements in court for 16 years. This court order implements the agreement negotiated by parties to the case for the corrective statement signs to be displayed in nearly 200,000 retail stores for 21 months – from October 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025.

The images can be seen at: https://www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch/case/philip-morris/settlement-images.

Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund was one of several public health intervenors.

More Details
or

Uruguay

Oct 19, 2022

Sociedad Uruguaya de Tabacología v. Executive Branch of the Uruguayan State

Sociedad Uruguaya de Tabacología (SUT) challenged Decree No. 282/022, issued by the executive branch, that modified Decree No. 120/019, regulating

Sociedad Uruguaya de Tabacología (SUT) challenged Decree No. 282/022, issued by the executive branch, that modified Decree No. 120/019, regulating the Plain Packaging Law of tobacco products. While an administrative tribunal (Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo) is considering the initial challenge, SUT also filed a rapid constitutional challenge, called an “amparo,” requesting suspension of the decree until the administrative challenge is decided. The amparo was filed in Family Court based on the Code for Children and Adolescents (CAN), which explains “the State has the obligation to especially protect children and adolescents from all forms of encouragement to tobacco consumption.” With regard to the amparo, the court decided in favor of SUT because the Decree fails to meet the objectives of the law that established plain packaging by not achieving the “plain” packaging design and labeling mandate. The Court concluded that any measures related to tobacco packaging, motivated by whatever reasons, must always consider the children and adolescents’ “best interest”, avoiding the violation of their rights to health, to a smoke-free environment and to a special protection from the encouragement of tobacco consumption.

More Details
or

Cambodia

Aug 8, 2022

Ministry of Health v. Kong Heng & Viniton Group Co.

The Viniton Group Company and Kong Heng were found guilty of violating the advertising and promotion provisions of the Law on Tobacco Control. The

The Viniton Group Company and Kong Heng were found guilty of violating the advertising and promotion provisions of the Law on Tobacco Control. The challenged promotional activities occurred during 2019 and 2020. The defendants were fined Riel 30,000,000 and ordered to reimburse the government in the amount of Riel 20,000,000.

More Details
or

Cambodia

Aug 8, 2022

Ministry of Health v. Bun Rath Lida & British American Tobacco Cambodia

British American Tobacco (BAT) Cambodia and Bun Rath Lida were found guilty of violating the advertising and promotion provisions of the Law on

British American Tobacco (BAT) Cambodia and Bun Rath Lida were found guilty of violating the advertising and promotion provisions of the Law on Tobacco Control. The challenged promotional activities occurred during 2019 and 2020. The defendants were fined Riel 30,000,000 and ordered to reimburse the government in the amount of Riel 20,000,000.

More Details
or

Colombia

Mar 2, 2022

Red PaPaz v. Rappi S.A.S

On December 2, 2019, the Colombian Association of Fathers and Mothers – Red PaPaz, filed a claim before the Colombian Superintendency of Industry and

On December 2, 2019, the Colombian Association of Fathers and Mothers – Red PaPaz, filed a claim before the Colombian Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC) against Rappi S.A.S (Rappi), a Colombian on-demand delivery online company, for the lack of mechanisms on Rappi's e-commerce website and mobile app to ensure that minors do not search and buy harmful products through them (such as alcohol and tobacco products). Although the complaint involved the sale and delivery of tobacco products generally, the evidence collected was specific to the availability for sale and delivery of heated tobacco product inserts (e.g., Heets). Specifically, the complaint alleged that minors could access, purchase and receive alcoholic beverages and tobacco products through Rappi's website without any significant limitations and without their age being verified at the time of purchase and delivery. This lack of protective measures violated the norms for the protection of minors established in Colombia's Law No. 1801-2016, Childhood and Adolescence Law. The complaint filed by Red PaPaz was investigated jointly, with many additional complaints filed by Colombian consumers against Rappi due to a series of infringements of the Colombian Consumer Protection Law. Upon completing the investigation, SIC verified each of the infractions reported by Red PaPaz and several other consumers and fined Rappi approximately $312,000.00 USD ($1,245,000,000.00 Colombian pesos). The decision has been challenged by Rappi.

More Details
or

France

Oct 7, 2021

British American Tobacco France vs. National Committee for Tobacco Control

British American Tobacco France (BAT France) appealed a lower court ruling (in "urgent proceedings") ordering the deletion of materials and content

British American Tobacco France (BAT France) appealed a lower court ruling (in "urgent proceedings") ordering the deletion of materials and content promoting e-cigarettes from the website "govype.com/fr" and ordering BAT to pay certain costs and damages. The appellate court ruled that some of the disputed content clearly constituted messages of an advertising nature, having the effect of promoting the quality and safety of the products (e.g., "Vype is a pioneer in the science of vaping"), touting the sensations that can be expected during consumption (e.g., "freshness is in the spotlight"), encouraging consumption through a loyalty program (e.g., "subscribe & save"), and highlighting the advantages of the product by comparing it to tobacco products (e.g., "vaping on average can cost 3 times less than a pack of traditional cigarettes"). These types of statements on a website that sells e-cigarettes do not fall within the exception in the law permitting posters "placed inside establishments marketing [e-cigarettes] and not visible from the outside." The court concluded that the "notion of a poster refers to the obvious requirement for a paper medium and not a virtual one." As a result, the court ordered BAT France to delete a number of promotional statements from the website and pay the National Committee for Tobacco Control damages (€30,000), irrevocable costs under the French Code of Civil Procedure (€8,000), and legal costs.

More Details
or

Italy

Sep 30, 2021

BAT - Surreptitious Advertising of Glo on Social Media

A consumer protection organization brought a complaint before the Italian Competition Authority alleging British American Tobacco Italia S.p.A. (BAT)

A consumer protection organization brought a complaint before the Italian Competition Authority alleging British American Tobacco Italia S.p.A. (BAT) and individual social media influencers violated the Consumer Code through Instagram posts promoting Glo Hyper, a heated tobacco product. The specific promotional practice at issue was a "call to action" where the influencers encouraged their followers to post content containing tags and hashtags related to Glo without asking them to also disclose the promotional nature of the posts. The influencers would then re-post the best user-generated content.

Ultimately, the regulatory authority declined to find an offense because both BAT and the influencers made certain commitments that the regulatory authority felt were sufficient to provide consumers with complete and accurate information going forward. These commitments by BAT included: (1) the adoption of Influencer Marketing Guidelines; (2) the addition of contractual provisions should BAT directly contract with influencers in the future; (3) the addition of contractual language if BAT contracts with influencers through an agency that would require the agency to monitor the influencers' activities and adherence to the Guidelines; (4) asking followers to include appropriate hashtags in any future calls to action; and (5) removal of the pages/posts that are subject to this dispute. The influencers agreed to: (1) remove the posts at issue; (2) use the appropriate hashtags in any future advertising and marketing activities; and (3) inform their followers that any user-generated content that doesn't contain the necessary tags or hashtags will not be considered in any contests.

More Details
or

Philippines

Jul 13, 2021

Dep't of Health v. Philippine Tobacco Institute

In 2011, the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI) sued for declaratory relief, seeking to set aside the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the

In 2011, the Philippine Tobacco Institute (PTI) sued for declaratory relief, seeking to set aside the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Republic Act No. 9711" (otherwise known as the "Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009" or "IRR").  PTI sought to prohibit the Department of Health and the Food and Drug Administration of the Philippines from implementing the IRR "insofar as it relates to the regulation of Tobacco Products." The Court held the law constitutional and explained that the PTI "failed to establish an existing right that was violated" and that any "alleged damage or injury the subject IRR would cause is merely speculative and prospective in nature." 

On January 27, 2012, the Regional Trial Court ruled on the merits and granted PTI's petition, voiding the IRR insofar as it regulated tobacco products and the tobacco industry.  PTI argued that they should be principally regulated by the Inter-Agency Committee on Tobacco as provided for by the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 (IAC-Tobacco) and the court agreed that it was improper for the DOH or FDA to regulate tobacco products outside of IAC-Tobacco.

On March 29, 2012, the DOH and FDA filed a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court. On July 13, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversing and setting aside the 2012 decision which nullified certain provisions of the IRR insofar as it regulated tobacco products and the tobacco industry. The Supreme Court held that (1) Section 25 of the IRR does not exclude the regulation of the health aspects of tobacco products from the FDA's authority and (2) tobacco products are "health products" under the definition provided under Section 10(ff) of Republic Act No. 3720, as amended by Section 9 of the IRR. The Supreme Court stated that principal regulation by IAC-Tobacco would be contrary to law and the international obligations of the Philippines. The Supreme Court held the given IRR, the Constitution, and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, petitioners have technical authority of matters of public health and therefore, regulation of the health aspects of tobacco products fall under the FDA's authority.

More Details
or

Argentina

May 13, 2021

Tabacalera Sarandí S.A. v. Argentine Tax Authority (AFIP)

Tabacalera Sarandí S.A. had obtained a preliminary injunction to suspend the application of the minimum amount of a tax established for the

Tabacalera Sarandí S.A. had obtained a preliminary injunction to suspend the application of the minimum amount of a tax established for the commercialization of tobacco. Thus, the company could apply the tax rate (70%) on the retail price without considering the minimum amount. The company argued that this minimum put it at a disadvantage with other multi-national tobacco companies. The Argentine Tax Authority appealed the decision, saying that the ruling affected the public interest and the extra-fiscal purpose of the tax, which is the protection of public health. The Supreme Court ruled that the tobacco company had not sufficiently demonstrated its injury and did not prove the requirements to be granted with the injunction. Thus, the Court revoked the injunction.

More Details
or

Lithuania

Mar 24, 2021

Philip Morris Baltic v. Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control

Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the

Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the manufacturer 2,100 Euros for illegal tobacco advertising and promotion. A lower court had previously rejected Philip Morris's initial complaint. The advertisements in question were promoting IQOS heating devices and involved both internet advertising and point of sale advertising. Philip Morris argued that the tobacco control law does not apply to electronic devices, that the information provided was not about tobacco products or related products, nor was it presented in a way that may mislead consumers. The court upheld the Department's decision, which was based on the finding that the advertising in question constituted unlawful hidden advertising of tobacco products. In disseminating information about the IQOS device, Philip Morris was also unlawfully disseminating information about and promoting the use of tobacco products.

More Details
or

France

Feb 12, 2021

National Committee for Tobacco Control v. British American Tobacco France

This order for urgent proceedings was brought by the National Committee for Tobacco Control (CNCT) against British American Tobacco France (BAT

This order for urgent proceedings was brought by the National Committee for Tobacco Control (CNCT) against British American Tobacco France (BAT France), which had posted on a website marketing an e-cigarette called "VYPE ePod" in violation of tobacco advertising and promotion laws. CNCT asked the Nanterre Judicial Court to compel BAT France to delete the site; to disclose to CNCT data on sales volumes and related information through the site; and to pay both advance compensation and compensation under relevant articles of the the French Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court referred the parties to appeal on the substance of the dispute, and provisionally reserved judgment as to the parties' claims. It dismissed CNCT's claims for the disclosure of sales data. It ordered deletion of certain language on the website and ordered BAT France to pay CNCT €1,000 as an advance payment on its claim for damages, €5,000 to CNCT in irrecoverable costs under the French Code of Civil Procedure, and legal costs.

More Details
or

Uganda

Feb 1, 2021

BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General and the Minister of Health

British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) challenged Uganda's Tobacco Control Regulations, 2019. BATU's court submissions raised a number of substantive

British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) challenged Uganda's Tobacco Control Regulations, 2019. BATU's court submissions raised a number of substantive and procedural claims, including the insufficient time to implement warnings, size of warnings, ban on some misleading descriptors, and flavoring ban. BATU sought and was granted a temporary injunction suspending implementation of Regulations 3, 4, 5, and 6. However, BAT subsequently withdrew its complaint and the injunction was lifted. 

More Details
or

Mexico

Jan 13, 2021

Vap Labs v. Mexico

Vap Labs asked the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) about the requirements needed to import and commercialize

Vap Labs asked the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) about the requirements needed to import and commercialize electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). COFEPRIS responded that the commercialization of e-cigarettes was banned under the scope of Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: “It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products.” Vap Labs filed an Amparo action based on alleged violations of constitutional principles. The District Court agreed and ordered COFEPRIS to authorize the importation, sale, and marketing of e-cigarettes in Mexico. COFEPRIS and the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress of Mexico requested the revision of the District Court's decision. They argued that the District Court decision should be void since the import and commercialization ban incorporated in Article 16(VI) does not violate the Mexican Constitution; Article 16(VI) instead establishes reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the exercise of Vap Labs' economic freedom. The Supreme Court of Justice for the Second Chamber agreed and ordered the District Court's decision's revocation and amendment, declaring Article 16(VI) constitutional. This is the fifth decision on this issue of the Second Chamber. Similar to a previous case, the Court distinguished between systems that operate exclusively with tobacco and those that do not, clarifying that Article 16(VI)’s ban applied only to e-cigarettes and not to heated tobacco products as these are tobacco products. This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case. See also Saborn Hermanos Sociedad Anonima v. Mexico, 853/2019, Mexican Supreme Court (2020).

More Details
or

Argentina

Dec 28, 2020

Baldassare v. British American Tobacco Argentina

The plaintiff brought an action against British American Tobacco (BAT) Argentina, seeking damages for all the health problems allegedly resulting

The plaintiff brought an action against British American Tobacco (BAT) Argentina, seeking damages for all the health problems allegedly resulting from his use of tobacco products. In particular, he sought compensation for a heart attack he suffered. He claimed that when he began smoking, the advertisements were misleading and did not warn him about the possible health problems caused by the substances in cigarettes. The judge determined that: (i) the case was not time-barred, (ii) tobacco consumption was probably one of the reasons for the heart attack, and (iii) the victim did not assume the risks of smoking because he was not sufficiently well informed, as required by the country's consumer protection law, and because he was not free to direct his actions due to the addiction. The lower court determined that BAT had to pay compensatory damages and also a fine as punitive damages.

More Details
or

Mexico

Nov 25, 2020

Saborn Hermanos Sociedad Anonima v. Mexico

Saborn Hermanos Sociedad Anónima, a chain of cafés, asked the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) about the

Saborn Hermanos Sociedad Anónima, a chain of cafés, asked the Federal Commission for Protection Against Health Risks (COFEPRIS) about the requirements needed to manufacture, import, and commercialize electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). COFEPRIS responded that the commercialization of e-cigarettes was banned under the scope of Article 16(VI) of the General Law on Tobacco Control, which states: “It is prohibited to trade, sell, distribute, display, promote or produce any object that is not a tobacco product which contains some of the brand elements or any type of design or auditory sign that identifies it with tobacco products.” Saborn filed an Amparo action alleging a violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The District Court agreed and declared Article 16(VI) contrary to the Political Constitution. However, COFEPRIS and the Chamber of Deputies of the Congress argued before the Supreme Court of Justice for the Second Chamber that Article 16(VI) establishes reasonable and proportionate restrictions on the exercise of Saborn’s economic freedom. The Supreme Court of Justice for the Second Chamber agreed and ordered the District Court's decision revoked.  This is the fourth decision regarding this issue in the Second Chamber, but this marked the first time that the Supreme Court of Justice for the Second Chamber declared Article 16(VI) constitutional. However, it distinguished between systems that operate exclusively with tobacco and those that do not, clarifying that Article 16(VI)’s ban applied only to e-cigarettes and not to heated tobacco products as these are tobacco products. This ruling applies only to the plaintiff who was a party to this case.

More Details
or

Brazil

Nov 2, 2020

Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro v. Rock World SA, Souza Cruz Ltda, and Vega Fina Tabacaria Eireli

The Public Ministry in Rio de Janeiro presented a civil action against Rock World SA, Souza Cruz Ltda, and Vega Fina Tabacaria Eireli for illegal

The Public Ministry in Rio de Janeiro presented a civil action against Rock World SA, Souza Cruz Ltda, and Vega Fina Tabacaria Eireli for illegal advertising in the festival "Rock in Rio" 2017. On November 2, 2020, the court concluded that the defendants engaged in unlawful advertising during the festival. The illegal advertising included (i) visually ostentatious advertising of smoking products and (ii) "mobile sellers.” On the other hand, the sale of a kit that included cigarettes and a lighter with the logo of "Rock in Rio" was not recognized as an illegal practice. The defendants were sanctioned as follows – (1) Defendants were fined R$ 2,000,000.00 for collective moral damages. For individual material and moral damages, each consumer will need to prove individually the actual damage suffered. (2) Defendants must carry out counter-advertising in partnership with public universities and hospitals informing consumers about the risks, prevention, and treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and smoking cessation.

In addition to bringing this enforcement action against the illegal advertising that took place at the Rock in Rio 2017, the Public Ministry sought an interim judgment barring illegal promotional activities at the then upcoming Rock in Rio 2019 festival. In response to this request, the court issued a series of orders restricting the promotional activities at the 2019 festival.

More Details
or

Lithuania

Sep 15, 2020

Philip Morris Baltic v. Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control

Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the

Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the manufacturer and distributor 2,896 Euros for illegal tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The violations and fines resulted from Philip Morris' "Lemiamas Metimas" campaign (the "Campaign"), which claimed to encourage individuals to quit smoking and presented heated tobacco and IQOS devices as an alternative product for those who were unable to quit. Philip Morris argued that the Campaign amounted to "social advertising" to inform smokers but not encourage the purchase of alternative products. Therefore, they claimed the tobacco control law did not prohibit the Campaign. Philip Morris also claimed that their right to disseminate the Campaign was within their right to freedom of expression under the Lithuanian Constitution. The court upheld the Department's decision and found that the Campaign amounted to the unlawful advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and that the Campaign was designed to mislead consumers. Further, the court rejected Philip Morris' claim that their right to freedom of expression was violated, holding that social advertising should not be used to promote certain goods and services, including tobacco products and related products.

More Details
or

Brazil

Aug 24, 2020

Confederacao Nacional do Comercio de Bens, Servicos e Turismo v. Paraná

The National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism filed a lawsuit against the Paraná (state-level) tobacco control law, which

The National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism filed a lawsuit against the Paraná (state-level) tobacco control law, which prohibits smoking in public or private collective environments in the state of Paraná. The Court unanimously held that the state legislative assembly did not exceed its competence to legislate public health. The Court also concluded that the state law did not offend fundamental freedoms since it did not prohibit the exercise of the individual's right to consume tobacco products. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the restriction of using tobacco products in collective enclosed environments respected the rights of non-smokers and the adequate protection of health.

More Details
or

Brazil

Aug 24, 2020

Confederação Nacional do Turismo et. Confederacao Nacional do Comercio de Bens, Servicos e Turismo v. Paraná

The National Confederation of Tourism, together with the National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism, filed a lawsuit against

The National Confederation of Tourism, together with the National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism, filed a lawsuit against the Paraná (state-level) tobacco control law, which prohibits smoking in public or private collective environments in the state of Paraná. The Court unanimously held that the state legislative assembly did not exceed its competence to legislate public health. The Court concluded that the state law did not offend fundamental freedoms since it did not prohibit the exercise of the individual's right to consume tobacco products. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the restriction of using tobacco products in collective enclosed environments respected the rights of non-smokers and the adequate protection of health.

More Details
or

Netherlands

Jun 30, 2020

Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)

Cubacigar Benelux NV (Cubacigar) appealed a lower court decision upholding packaging restrictions contained in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations.

Cubacigar Benelux NV (Cubacigar) appealed a lower court decision upholding packaging restrictions contained in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations. Specifically, Cubacigar had challenged restrictions limiting the use of metallic foils and embossing (“glitter and glamor” elements) on cigar boxes. The lower court held that these restrictions in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations did not conflict with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The court also determined that although the packaging requirements restricted the free movement of goods, the requirements were justified from a public health point of view because they are aimed at reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products. Further, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were also met.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that the packaging requirements under the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations are in line with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The Court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the measures are justified on grounds of public health protection and are proportionate.

More Details
or

Australia

Jun 9, 2020

Australia - Tobacco Plain Packaging Final Ruling

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its final ruling affirming that Australia’s pioneering law requiring plain packaging

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its final ruling affirming that Australia’s pioneering law requiring plain packaging for tobacco products and finding it entirely consistent with WTO agreements. In particular, the WTO appeal ruling confirmed the original finding that the evidence shows that tobacco plain packaging laws "are apt to, and do in fact, contribute to Australia's objective of reducing the use of, and exposure to, tobacco products."

The appeal ruling also confirmed that:

  • Tobacco plain packaging is not more trade-restrictive than is necessary to meet its legitimate public health objective.
  • Trademark owners do not have a positive right to use their trademarks under WTO TRIPS agreement, but only the right to prevent third parties from using them.
  • Tobacco plain packaging is a justified restriction on the use of trademarks and does not violate trademark protections.
More Details
or

Republic of Korea

Mar 17, 2020

Korea Electronic Cigarette Association v. Ministry of Health and Welfare

The Korea Electronic Cigarette Association challenged the constitutionality of the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidance urging the public to

The Korea Electronic Cigarette Association challenged the constitutionality of the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidance urging the public to stop using e-cigarettes at least until a safety management system could be put into place and research into human toxicity was completed. The Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, holding that the guidance did not infringe on e-cigarette companies' constitutional rights. The ministerial guidance did not amount to an "exercise of government power" because it had no direct legal effect on the rights and duties of the people and is, therefore, not subject to adjudication on a constitutional complaint.

More Details
or

Panama

Mar 5, 2020

La Prensa S.A. v. General Directorate of Public Health of the Ministry of Health

An amparo remedy was filed against Resolution No. 0573 of February 27, 2019, issued by the General Directorate of Public Health of the Ministry of

An amparo remedy was filed against Resolution No. 0573 of February 27, 2019, issued by the General Directorate of Public Health of the Ministry of Health. The resolution sanctioned La Prensa S.A. with a fine of B$ 10,000.00 for publishing a news article on IQOS, Philip Morris's heated tobacco product, sponsored by the manufacturer. The article was titled "NEW ALTERNATIVES COMING FOR ADULT SMOKERS". La Prensa was fined as a result of non-compliance with the total ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. La Prensa objected to the fine on the basis that its constitutional rights to be heard, to offer evidence, and to due process were violated. However, the Court declined to grant the amparo and upheld the sanction since the Ministry of Health acted according to its legal powers.

More Details
or

One moment. Loading results.