Tobacco Companies Using Trademark Claims To Try To Avoid Putting Warning Labels On Cigarrettes & Cigars
from the your-health-is-less-important-than-someone's-trademark dept
A bunch of folks sent in this bizarre trademark lawsuit in Australia, where tobacco giant British American Tobacco is suing Australian importer Trojan for trademark infringement. Where it gets bizarre is in what BAT claims is infringing on its trademark: it's claiming that since the mandatory health warning placed on cigar packages covers part of BAT's logo, it's trademark infringement. Think about that for a second. One of the readers who sent this in, Bruce, points us to a little bit of background as well. Apparently, Australia has a new rule coming into effect that says all such products must soon be offered in plain packages -- and some lobbyists in support of the tobacco companies have been claiming that plain packages violate trademark, and go against Australia's treaty obligations -- including its free trade agreement with the US. For years, we've noted that when lobbyists break out the "international obligations" claim, you know that they're really full of it, but this seems especially ridiculous. It's difficult to see how this is anything more than a massive twisting of trademark law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, cigarettes, cigars, trademark
Companies: british american tobacco
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
philosophy department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This middle ground is stupid, and leads the company lawyers to have to come up with pretty weird defenses to try to defeat the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Example, lately I've seen some commercial claiming X million people die every year of smoking-related diseases. True but not remotely honest. Yes the diseases are smoking-related diseases but they don't bother to tell you how many people who died of those diseases smoked. They just include them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that's neither here nor there. Everyone on the bloody planet knows that smoking is bad for them and has fair odds of killing them sooner than they would have otherwise died. Those of us who still prefer to partake of it anyway obviously do not care, so this is just anti-tobacco lobbyists thumbing their collective noses at the tobacco companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logo obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logo obfuscation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pack can't be displayed in a shop so the logo won't be seen until after purchase....
Why don't they just reprint the pack so the logo is not covered? (they have had 5 years to do so)
Is putting a label with the percentage of each ingredients and RDI on the pack also trademark infringement?
What about labels for localised promotional competitions?
How about warnings that the product may contain nuts, dairy or other ingredients you may be allergic too?
What about a pharmacy/doctor that puts stickers (with dose, patient etc) over the brand on medicine bottles?
Tabacco is a restricted product in Australia (selling tabacco to a under 18's is a very large fine) and can not even be diplayed in shops. So only after purchase will the logo be seen.
For decades there has been no tabacco advertising allowed on TV.
For 5 years the 100% of the back panel and 25% of the front of all tabacco products has been a graphic warning.
For the last year tabacco products can not be displayed in shops (hidden inside cabinets).
Recently cigarettes had to meet fire hazard standards (must self extinguish).
Soon all the packs will have to be blank, except for the warning.
Clearly the tabacco industry knows this will harm their business and are fighting back (by trying to set an obtuse legal precident).
BTW a pack of 25 costs US$15 - US$20 in Australia, due to massive taxes.
Why?
Because Australia has full public health care, paid for by the Australian tax-payers (and 1/4 of all Australian tabacco users need expensive health care at some point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The pack can't be displayed in a shop so the logo won't be seen until after purchase....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People do not care about warning labels
People ignore the warning on their SVU that it may tip over if turning too fast.
People ignore the warning on their toaster to keep it away from the sink.
People ignore the warning on their hair spray to keep away from flames.
People will ignore the warning on the cigarette packs too.
These warning label laws sound good on paper.
But in practice do not result in changing people's behaviour.
So why do we waste time and money making such ineffective laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
At this point if someone doesn't know that cigarettes impose a health risk, they'll probably get a Darwin award before smoking kills them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
It's hard to think of another product that can actually kill you, even if used in moderation, that is legal to sell to the public and all that is required to avoid responsibility is a warning on the package basically saying "the product within this package can and may kill you, even if used in moderation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
Let people use products and substances as they choose (so long as they aren't hurting others). Stop trying to force people to follow the ideal that smoking is bad. People don't care, they just want to smoke.
And no, the tobacco companies should absolutely not be held liable. They didn't force you to consume their products, and currently, it's practically impossible to claim that you didn't know they would hurt you. I don't care if they're used as directed or not.
Warning: Using a car as directed may result in a lethal traffic collision. Do we hold auto manufacturers liable? No. We know and understand the risks by choosing to purchase and operate a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
- the ability to use that car on public streets is heavily regulated (where, when, how fast). Sort of like where you can or can't smoke.
- The car industry is heavily regulated, unlike the Tobacco co's who can add almost anything they like to cigs (is there really that much tar in raw tobacco leaves?)
- Car Manufacturers have been held liable for damages if they purposely compromise safety features.
- Car Manufacturers have to contend with public safety continuousness. I haven't see the equivalent of crash test ratings for cigs.
There are lots of things that are regulated. Although I see their right to fight the regulation, TM is not the right venue. Ultimately if they don't want to abide by those rules then they don't have to sell there and somebody else will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
"Let people use products and substances as they choose (so long as they aren't hurting others)."
I totally agree with this point! Legalize it all and tax it. Marijuana growers are closest to actually seeing this happen but poppy growers, and others (currently) illegal substance manufacturers will never see this happen in their lifetime. But our government will spend billions fighting the "War on Drugs" which should be titled the "War on drugs we don't like and subsidize!"
My major issue here is the selectiveness of Congress to decide what we can and cannot subject ourselves to - which they've decided in some back room and resulted in subsidies going to tobacco farmers because heaven forbid the farmers can't adapt to the new changing markets where tobacco consumption is actually falling.
Hey farmer - that same dirt WILL grow other crops!!
Does the RIAA work for the tobacco farmers too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
> kill you, even if used in moderation
Tobacco will _not_ kill you if used in moderation. The lethality of all poisons is in the dosage. If someone smoke a few cigarrettes a day, they would die of old age before dying of cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
Personally I know the dangers as well and I still do it despite these facts. The labels are meaningless really.
However, should tobacco even be legal while other less dangerous substances are not?
My preference is to legalize everything and let nature take its course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People do not care about warning labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any grown adult knows tobacco is bad for you these days. Over regulating and forcing companies to carry super-sized warning labels and change their packaging is just as bad. And if there's something that has been pointed out time and time again on TechDirt, it's that you can't legislate behavior.
Personally, I'm offended any time I hear that the U.S. government is pissing away time and money on tobacco company issues. I'm not saying that the industry shouldn't be regulated at all, but quit wasting my tax dollars on it. There are so many bigger problems to tackle. People VOLUNTARILY purchasing and consuming cigarettes knowing full well that they regularly cause harm DOES NOT CONCERN ME.
No more changes to labeling requirements. No more marketing restrictions. Let the companies operate like any other company. And let the people decide what they're going to do - because they will regardless of all this wasted time and legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah yes, because nobody realized that smoking was dangerous until they put warning labels on it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrink the logo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shrink the logo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tobacco companies can easily move their trademark elsewhere on the package where it will not be covered and the problem will be resolved.
Meanwhile, suing somebody for doing something wrong when the only legal means for them to avoid doing so was to disobey the law could well be considered a form of entrapment, or at the very least enticement to disobey the law, and I would rather hope that the judge slams a rather large fine on the tobacco company simply for attempting to pull this stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Warning labels on cigarettes are mandatory by law.With criminal sanctions (not civil) against companies who breach them.
BAT know this absolutely, the same as does Phillip Morris (another company trying the same tactics).
In Australia advertising of any form whatsoever (other than on their own product packaging) for tobacco products has been illegal (criminal) for over 10yrs.
Tobacco companies are not allowed to sponsor either.
Tobacco products have to be sold behind partitions that cannot be seen from the street and cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16 (18 some places)
It is offence to smoke tobacco products in public indoor spaces, government buildings, or in places of work (OH&S issue) [Yes private companies have a duty to provide a smoke free workplace now]
It is an offence for an adult to smoke tobacco products in any vehicle with a child under the age of 14yrs old as well.
Soon Tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars, loose-leaf etc) will have to by federal law only be available in plain white packages with the companies name and product name in a specific placement with same typeface across the board (all products) no matter what. There is NO trademark dispute then since the Government is not mandating that the logo or trademark be changed.. they are mandating that it cannot be shown therefore the actual trademark cannot be in dispute since the trademark is not able to actually be shown. No treaty has been broken since there has been no breach of trademark acts (no diluting, passing off etc etc etc)
Has any of these methods worked in cutting down tobacco usage within Australia?
Actually we have seen the people who smoke go down significantly in numbers over the last twenty years though some of this can be contributed to the common sense notion that anyone who doesn't live in a cave knows that tobacco products (those filled with chemicals by the tobacco companies anyway) are bad for you.
Why doesn't the Australian Government ban the sale of tobacco outright though?
Thats easy.. MONEY! A packet of 25 cigarettes here is worth around $10 - $12 with over 60% of that going in Tax to the Federal govt. (Oh and yes thats another way we have stopped people indulging.. make it EXPENSIVE) Think of the money they would loose.. Yes like all govt's everywhere, ours is hypocritical too ;(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And all the restrictions as to selling on one allocated counter are probably pissing off the shops way more than pissing off the buyers. And yeah, thats how it is in oz if it's not like that in your country.
I want off this frickin smouldering island, I wanna relocate to holland ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As soon as I can find a way to not breathe the toxic clouds at the entrance to the building, sure.
Look, you want to smoke, fine. I really don't give a shit if you want to inhale carcinogens until you grow a third arm and look like the Toxic Avenger. I very much mind my having to inhale the same carcinogens against my will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't mind the regular city smog, dust, smoke and pollution at all. I can breathe that all day and if it affects me, who cares, not me!! But I feel a little tired today and I remember that 2 days ago a smoker walked past me. Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angles
It is very easy to be against the tobacco companies, yet there are still a few areas where they can push back and not seem like "bad" companies and actually have the public backing them up.
They don't care if there's really a claim, as long as a few people will say "hey I think that company is right," they're satisfied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]