NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

British American Tobacco & others v. Department of Health - (19 May 2016)

High Court snuffs tremendous tobacco challenge

Commercial

Tobacco companies launched full scale war against British legislation enabling Article 20(5) of the Tobacco Products Directive, which severely restricts the ability of tobacco companies to advertise their brands on packaging and on the products themselves.

The measures, recently approved, by the British Parliament bring in “standardised packaging” - homogenised, undifferentiated sale of tobacco products. Companies can mention their name and brand of product, but much of the allure of advertising is erased, replaced by health warnings and helplines to quit smoking.

Tobacco arguments against the regulations are severalfold and encompass quite literally the entire proceedings. Beginning with the legality of source of the regulation, issue is raised about treatment of evidence produced by tobacco companies, the proportionality of regulation, competing private and public interest and more - totalling 17 grounds of challenge.

The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in London rejected all of the claims for judicial review. The court was of the opinion that the regulations were not disproportionate and achieved a significant public health objective. The tobacco industry was not denied monetisation of its intellectual property; moreover, “private predominantly financial interest of the tobacco industry…balance comes down overwhelmingly in favour of the Regulations”.

Also relied on was a European Court of Justice ruling rejecting a tobacco challenge regarding implantation of EU legislation. The court in that case too had rejected the super-technical challenges and found the Regulation “perfectly valid” under international and European law. Taking a pragmatic approach, the court also noted that the tobacco industry making its profits was resulting in a “health crises of epidemic proportions”, as described by the World Health Organisation, and the clean-up cost would fall on the public itself.

Tags : TOBACCO   UNIFORM PACKAGING   BRANDING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved