Facts and truths that the tobacco industry must accept

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.

Justification for taking strong measures against the tobacco industry must be based on facts and realities that command wide assent. Ten ‘facts and realities’ justified by the tobacco industry’s own documents, are set out below. The industry should now be required to admit these:

1. That smoking causes many kinds of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses which are fatal for many sufferers. The industry still does not publicly accept that smoking causes lung cancer.

2. That annual global death toll caused by smoking is 4 million. By 2030, that figure will rise to 10 million with seventy percent of those deaths occurring in developing countries.

3. That nicotine is the most important active ingredient in tobacco; that the tobacco companies are in the drug business; the drug is nicotine and that the cigarette is a drug delivery device. The industry maintains it is a simple consumer goods industry.

4. That nicotine is physiologically and psychologically addictive, in a similar way to heroin and cocaine – rather than shopping, chocolate or the Internet. The overwhelming majority of smokers are strongly dependent on nicotine and that this is a substantial block to smokers’ quitting if they choose to. The industry still maintains that nicotine is not addictive in the sense used here.

5. That teenagers (13-18) and children (<13) are inherently important to the tobacco market and that companies are competing for market share in these age groups. The industry maintains that its business is only focussed on adults.

6. That advertising increases total consumption as well as promoting brand share. The industry flatly denies this.

7. That advertising is one (of several) important and interlocking ingredients that nurture smoking behaviour among teenagers and children. The industry denies its advertising influences the smoking behaviour of children.

8. That current formulations of low tar cigarettes create false health reassurance and offer little or no health benefit. The industry has either not publicly accepted this or argued that it never claimed any health benefits.

9. That second-hand smoke is a real public health hazard, including causing childhood diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, cot-death and glue ear, and is a cause of lung cancer and heart disease in adults. The industry has mounted a major disinformation campaign in this area.

That the tobacco industry has the normal duty of the best tobacco manufacturer to ensure that it does not market  a defective product and that its products are as safe as possible.

Impact of Plain Packaging on Tobacco Industry

Plain packaging refers to the selling of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products in standardized without any eye-catching logos, trademarks, brand names or colors. The brand name is to be replaced by health warnings. Though, a little area of the packet has the brand name printed in a plain even typeface. If plain packaging applied, every packet of cigarette would look the same.

Implications of Plain Packaging of Cigarettes on IPR

The advent of the plain packaging rule in numerous nations in the world has led to a fuss from the tobacco contract manufacturing industry with respect to violation of the property rights, precisely associated to the rights assured under Trademark laws.

The Tobacco Industry has powerfully discouraged plain packaging by putting forward its drawbacks and considers that it would bring more damage to the society. One of the major drawbacks, the Industry claimed is that the plain packaging rule will surge counterfeiting of goods as there will be no definite recognition of the brands on the packet. The quality of the item will also be conceded as poor quality tobacco products will be sold which will cause harm to the users. Also, restraining the packaging cost would lead to the dropping in the overall cost of the product and therefore would appeal more consumers.

Further on, the amount paid out by the tobacco industry on capital publicizing and promoting their brand names and trademarks would decline on the execution of the plain packaging rule leaving some trademark attorneys without any customers. Moreover, there has been no convincing proof that plain packaging would essentially lower the tobacco intake rate.

As Australia was the first nation to announce and mandatorily execute the Plain Packaging Law, the same was opposed immensely by the Tobacco Industry of Australia challenging that plain packaging denies the Industry of their renowned trademark rights. The Australian High Court rejected the plea, and the plain packaging rule has continued in Australia in spite of all opposition.

The International Trademark Association, which is an international association of trademark owners and experts, has acquiesced that the imposition of obligatory plain packaging for cigarettes and other tobacco products would rob the trademark owners of their treasured property which in ambiguity to the international rules which offer for the safeguard of trademarks.

In conclusion, it can be held without any doubt that the plain packaging rule denies the trademark owner of their Intellectual Property and also disrupts the International Standards with respect to Intellectual Property rights, but it is the responsibility of every State to safeguard and raise awareness about health of her citizens. With the growing use of Cigarettes and other Tobacco related products, there is a crucial necessity for stern actions against such use, and also try to maintain a balance between the Intellectual property privileges of the Cigarette and Tobacco manufacturers.