[JURIST] The UK’s High Court of Justice [official website] struck down a challenge by several cigarette companies against requiring plain packaging on cigarette packaging. In its almost 400-page decision [judgment, PDF], the court upheld the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 [materials, PDF] against the tobacco companies’ claims that this regulation would constitute an intellectual property rights violation. In doing so, the court stated that its decision did not rely simply upon financial pluses and minuses, although it did balance these factors, but also weighed the damage to the property rights of the cigarette companies against the benefits to the public health that would arise through this law. As a result of this ruling, tobacco companies will be banned from branding on their cigarettes. In particular they will not be able to use color or brand names to help market their product.

Increased regulation of smoking has been seen throughout the world. Earlier this month the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded [JURIST report] its regulatory reach to all tobacco products. Just prior to that, the EU Court of Justice [official website] upheld [JURIST report] rules that will require health warnings to cover 65 percent of a cigarette pack. In 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand approved a new regulation requiring packs of cigarettes sold in the Southeast Asian country to be 85 percent covered with graphic health warnings [JURIST report]. In 2012 the High Court of Australia upheld [JURIST report] a law that requires cigarette packages to display graphic images warning of the dangers of smoking and bans brand logos. In the US, there has also been debate over the constitutionality of graphic cigarette warning labels. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] graphic warnings in August 2012, holding that the FDA rule on graphic cigarette label warnings exceeded the agency’s statutory authority and undermined tobacco companies’ economic autonomy.