Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 AUGUST 2012

Australia's tobacco plain packaging law held to be constitutional and valid

DLA Piper Australia
Explore more from DLA Piper Australia

The landmark decision raises the question of how tobacco companies will differentiate themselves from their competitors.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Melinda Upton
Melinda Upton
Jessie Buchan
Jessie Buchan

Intellectual Property Alert

In a landmark decision, a majority of the High Court of Australia has rejected the constitutional challenge mounted by several key players in the tobacco industry who opposed the introduction of the Federal Government's (Government's) plain packaging laws on the basis that it amounted to an acquisition of their statutory intellectual property on 'unjust terms'. The decision has been hailed as a victory for the Government and various anti-smoking groups, yet the tobacco industry has vowed it will not give up its challenge and it will continue to focus on the ongoing legal challenges to plain packaging, which are embroiled in numerous international trade and treaty obligations.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers