CorpComms Magazine

Receive our free weekly e-bulletin

 
 
  • Welcome
  • Features
  • News and Views
  • Print Edition
  • Events
  • Awards
  • Conferences
  • Jobs
 
  • Home
  • News
  • Digi
  • In My View
  • Top 10 Tips
  • Profile
  • Take One Problem
  • Revision Notes
  • Statistically Speaking
  • Both Sides of the Coin
 

Philip Morris v Australia

by Helen Dunne on 12/07/2011 11:55:04 in Issue 58 | share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet

Australian government plans to strip company logos from cigarette packets

About the author:

Helen Dunne

Helen Dunne is the editor of CorpComms Magazine, follow her tweets here @CorpCommsMag

Philip Morris v Australia

Who's this nutter Philip Morris who says he's going to sue the Australian government? Is he mad?

It's not a he. It's a company. Philip Morris is the world's largest publicly traded tobacco company.

So why is it annoyed with the Australian government? Has it banned smoking?

Not quite. But the Australian government is planning to strip company logos from cigarette packaging and replace them with images of cancerous mouths, sickly children and blinded eyes, starting in January.

Yikes! That's a bit off-putting as you inhale. Can they really do that?

Philip Morris says not. It argues that the move diminishes the value of its trademark. The Australian government is going to ban cigarette makers from printing their logos, promotional text or colourful images on packs. Instead, all cigarette packaging will be in a regulation olive green colour.

I get the feeling the Australian government is anti-smoking!

You could say that. It has banned smoking in all public places and increased sales taxes on all tobacco products. It now costs A$20 (roughly £13) for one packet of 20 cigarettes. Some tobacco companies have even run advertising campaigns asking Australians if they really want to live in a 'nanny state'.

So does Philip Morris have a case?

Well, Philip Morris Asia, which owns the Australian affiliate, is based in Hong Kong, and argues that the legislation violates a 20 year old bilateral investment treaty between Australia and Hong Kong. This protects investments by both sides in each other's territory and prohibits the forced removal of trademarks.

Sounds like a winning argument...

Let's wait and see. Philip Morris claims compensation could run into billions, and it's hard to see the government handing over a cheque to its nemesis.

You're probably right. Anyway, enough of this, have you got a light?

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet

CorpComms Jobs

Visit our jobs section to view or post job listings and to read helpful information on job hunting.
New jobs:

PR Agency Account Executive Consumer Team
PR Agency Account Manager B2B
PR Agency Account Manager B2B (Ref: MEP1205-71)
Internal Communications Senior Editor MMM1205-53
Account Director/SAD - Global healthcare comms
Account Dir./Sen. Account Director, Finac & Professional Serv Agency
Media Relations Assistant
Media Relations Manager (Ref: JAM1205-58)
Account Manager, Investor Communications LBW1112-44
PR Manager

Or view all our jobs.
 
copyright ©2012 s9 | Contact | Terms | site by sav