tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1165269708494372689..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Sisters act to oppose plain packaging proposalsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78801877498290628302012-04-25T09:18:32.373+01:002012-04-25T09:18:32.373+01:00While I haven't smoked for many years [when I ...<i>While I haven't smoked for many years [when I gave up, 20 Embassy cost 4/6d] I can't recall ever having bought cigarettes for the attractiveness of their packets.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Strike-Packet-Raymond-Design-Classics/dp/376436775X" rel="nofollow">Industrial design history</a> begs to differ. The truth is, successful tobacco companies have always taken great care in ensuring the attractiveness of their packaging, which is why they are appalled by this plain packaging proposal.<br /><br />The "confusion" argument seems utterly disingeneous. Surely, if the only distinguishing feature is the brand name, consumers will rather pay more attention to it, rather than less. Furthermore, these days it isn't as if one could absent-mindedly pick a packet from a supermarket shelf anymore: restrictions on sales to minors have made it an over-the-counter item.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49595354593237530922012-04-24T18:10:25.996+01:002012-04-24T18:10:25.996+01:00The argument about colourful artistic trademarks b...The argument about colourful artistic trademarks being harder to counterfeit is simply nonsense. When it’s so easy to counterfeit currency itself with modern reprography, is the trivial extra cost and effort of copying a pretty package going to make any real difference? <br /><br />Phillip Morris will still be able to sell its carcinogenic product under the Marlboro® trademark. It’s just that this will have to be in plain font without any pretty graphics or pictures of cowboys on horses galloping around fresh mountain air.<br /><br />There are all kinds of limitations out there already on how trademarks for products such as prescription drugs, guns, pornography, etc. can be used. This is simply one more. If – more realistically when – the sale of cigarettes is actually banned outright in some countries as a hazardous product or on some other basis, then will there still be whining about expropriation of IP rights?<br /><br />TRIPs already contemplates the limitation on use of trademarks for public health and safety reasons and the protection of the IP rights per se when such limitation is due to mandatory non-use. See Articles 8 and 19. I understand that Australia will also expressly deem that non-use of a trade-mark on a package will not per se result in the loss of the registration or rights that flow from it.<br /><br />I’ve seen some undoubtedly expensive and inaccurate opinions on this subject – which is to be expected. But, I’m sad to see reputable IP organizations being cajoled into supporting commercial causes – especially such a blatantly bad one and based upon erroneous analysis of international law.<br /><br />HansHans Sachsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3106915629188383062012-04-24T16:04:08.523+01:002012-04-24T16:04:08.523+01:00Surely the [original] function of a trade mark was...Surely the [original] function of a trade mark was to distinguish the goods of one person from the goods of another, and the system of registered trademarks eliminates the need to establish reputation in your own mark. <br /><br />While I haven't smoked for many years [when I gave up, 20 Embassy cost 4/6d] I can't recall ever having bought cigarettes for the attractiveness of their packets. Rather the information on the packet, including the trade marked brand name, indicated the nature and quality of the goods. <br /><br />I agree with Paul Leonard's concerns about counterfeiting: plain packets must be easier to counterfeit than coloured, and the high [and increasing] cost of tobacco products is certain to be attractive to counterfeiters. <br /><br />I fear that this is yet another example of people feeling that they have to be seen to be doing something, even though what they propose will not actually achieve anything positive.Almost Emeritusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15003686732477496122012-04-24T11:56:58.648+01:002012-04-24T11:56:58.648+01:00All the comments seem to be addressing the limitat...All the comments seem to be addressing the limitations placed on the tobacco companies, rather than the possible adverse effects on consumers. My only concern is the possibility of aiding counterfeiting. If one is going to be silly enough to smoke (which, sadly, I am) I would like to know that I'm smoking what I think I'm smoking, and not something which might be even more harmful. I'm not sure if there has been enough time since the Aussie TM ban to make a proper judgment, but I suspect it will make little difference. Hope it does!Paul Leonardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29694984358837189552012-04-24T11:10:55.803+01:002012-04-24T11:10:55.803+01:00Surely part of the question is if trade marks are ...Surely part of the question is if trade marks are an exclusive right to stop other people using a particular mark or are they a right to use a mark?<br /><br />I would suggest that they are the former and so the tobacco companies' arguments are mere puffs (sorry). This is because they have no positive rights to use something. They have a monetary interest in a brand, but that is monetised by selling more fags. <br /><br />It seems to be tobacco should be dealt with as something addicts need rather than a lifestyle choice and I think that the IP organisations should probably look for a cause a little less murky to support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65668528937435421482012-04-24T10:35:30.937+01:002012-04-24T10:35:30.937+01:00As always, thank you for keeping us informed! But ...As always, thank you for keeping us informed! But I disagree with your last remark. Since when has banning something made people stop doing it? On the contrary, it makes it all the more attractive! But take away the brand and the positive image associated with it, and the product will no longer be so attractive. After all, people relate strongly to the messages behind brands and identify themselves with the brand and the life-style implied by the brand. Using a particular brand is a way of sending a message about who we are. Isn’t that what a brand is really about?Marijana Kozakijevichttp://www.mjb.rs/en/patent-agent/marijana-p-kozakijevinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16917806222994969232012-04-24T09:22:07.936+01:002012-04-24T09:22:07.936+01:00To Anonymous 8:59am
A less polite kat than me wou...To Anonymous 8:59am<br /><br />A less polite kat than me would say you don't know what you're talking about. <br /><br />Take a look at the UK register, which is available online. There you will find registered many marks such as COCAINE, POISON and OPIUM (incidentally HEROIN started off as a trade mark).<br /><br />None of the named organisations is putting IP above public health and it's entirely inappropriate for you to say so.Merpel McKitten (Ms)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49392926573506447702012-04-24T08:59:03.737+01:002012-04-24T08:59:03.737+01:00I find it frankly loathsome that these professiona...I find it frankly loathsome that these professional associations, clearly influenced by some very wealthy clients, lend themselves to support the opposition to a most beneficial, and popular, proposal.<br /><br />"but we don't ban car trade marks".<br /><br />On the other hand, some trade marks <b>are</b> banned (remember the "Cocaine" brouhaha?). And it is frankly disingeneous to call plain tobacco packaging a ban on trade marks: it's a (further) restriction in their use, but not a ban.<br /><br />Above all, putting IP above all other considerations, including public health, is just the kind of attitude that is souring public attitudes towards IP. Just when Pirate Parties are flourishing all over Europe, this kind of posturing is inappropriate at best, suicidal at worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22152683183215312942012-04-24T05:34:16.426+01:002012-04-24T05:34:16.426+01:00Hans, you sweet old thing, your analogy isn't ...Hans, you sweet old thing, your analogy isn't very helpful --or even relevant.<br /><br />We have lots of rules that govern how cars are driven, parked, insured etc -- but we don't ban car trade marks.Merpelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6819681109252230462012-04-24T03:39:24.428+01:002012-04-24T03:39:24.428+01:00So really, dear Merpel...
Would you fight for unr...So really, dear Merpel...<br /><br />Would you fight for unrestricted use of trademarks on billboards near schools or in comic books aimed at kids to sell guns,or alcoholic beverages or narcotic drugs to children ? Or even in mass circulation tabloids?<br /><br />A trademark registration is not a license to advertise wares and services that can maim, injure or even worse....<br /><br />Restrictions are expressly permitted in TRIPS....<br /><br />Please don't be naive...<br /><br />HansHans Sachsnoreply@blogger.com