The Bilateral Investment Treaty Dispute between Australia and Philip Morris Asia: What Rights are Relevant and How Have they Been Affected?
Transnational Dispute Management, Vol. 9, No. 5, November 2012
9 Pages Posted: 11 Feb 2013
Date Written: February 11, 2013
This article discusses the Bilateral Investment Treaty (‘BIT’) dispute between Australia and Philip Morris Asia Ltd (‘PMA’) and the implications for PMA’s intellectual property rights as a result of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) (‘TPP’). In Part 1, it examines the merit of PMA’s claims in its Notice of Arbitration relating to the intellectual property rights of Philip Morris Limited (‘PML’).
In Part 2, it turns to discuss the impact of the TPP on trademarks specifically before turning, in Part 3, to discuss the rights of registered trademark owners at Australian and International law. In the context of examining the rights of registered trademarks at Australian law, it provides an analysis of the recent decision in JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia (‘the Constitutional challenge’) and its implications for registered trademark owners. The paper concludes with a discussion of the extent to which the Australian law relating to taking and acquisition will be relevant to interpreting and applying the BIT.
Keywords: trademarks, constitutional law, investment treaty, hong kong, australia, tobacco, arbitration, international, investment law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation