Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The National Committee for Tobacco Control (CNCT) sued the Paris Transport Authority, claiming that the Transport Authority violated France's tobacco advertising ban by placing ads for Camel Watches/Camel Trophy in metro stations. The Transport Authority argued that such advertising was not banned because (1) the watches had been on the market since 1987 (before France enacted its tobacco control legislation) and (2) the advertiser (the Swiss company, Melco Watch Ltd.) was legally and financially separate from any manufacturer, importer or retailer of tobacco. The trial and appeals courts found the Transport Authority guilty of illegal tobacco advertising, and the Authority appealed. The Court of Cassation observed that there was a legal link between RJR Reynolds, the owner of the Camel brand, and the manufacturer, distributer and retailer of tobacco, World Wide Brands Inc. (WBI), and Melco Watch, a WBI trademark holder. The court found that that even if the watches were present on the market before the adoption of France’s tobacco control legislation, it is prohibited to advertise such products because there is a link between the watches and the tobacco industry. The court, accordingly, affirmed the judgments below.