论文部分内容阅读
2012年澳大利亚开始实施《烟草简易包装法案》,禁止在烟草产品的零售包装上使用商标,并采取统一简易包装。菲利普莫里斯烟草公司等依据双边投资条约提起仲裁,并游说乌克兰等向WTO提起争端。简易包装措施是否构成国际投资协定下的“间接征收”面临投资者可合理预见该烟草商标管制行为,政府并没有给予特定保护的确认的障碍。《TRIPS协定》第20条禁止成员方对商标的使用施加不合理干扰的特殊要求,简易包装措施使烟草产品在销售时无法发挥商标识别商品来源、防止混淆的功能,可能构成不合理的干扰。另外,《TBT协定》第2.2条要求为实现公共健康目的的技术法规不产生不必要的贸易限制,简易包装措施亦有可能被认为欠缺科学依据,超出了必要贸易限制性而被认定为不符合《TBT协定》的要求。
In 2012, Australia introduced the Simple Tobacco Packaging Act, which prohibits the use of trademarks on the retail packaging of tobacco products and adopts a uniform and simple package. Philip Morris Tobacco, etc. filed an arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty and lobbied Ukraine to file a dispute with the WTO. Whether the simple packaging measures constitute an “indirect expropriation” under IIAs is confronted with the fact that investors can reasonably foresee the tobacco trade mark control. The government has not given any impediment to the identification of a specific protection. Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement prohibits members from applying undue interference with the trademark’s special requirements. Simple packaging means that tobacco products can not function as trademarks to identify the source of goods when they are sold, and the function of preventing confusion may constitute unreasonable interference. In addition, Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement requires that there be no unnecessary trade restrictions on the technical regulations for the purpose of public health, and that the simple packaging measures may also be considered as lacking in scientific basis and exceeding the necessary trade restrictions to be deemed non-conforming Requirements of the TBT Agreement.