Page:JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/33

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Gummow J

23.

to reside in the features of shape and configuration of a ribbed pack illustrated in the representations accompanying the registration. BAT Investments also is grantee of Patent No 2001258572 under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) ("the Patents Act") for an invention titled "Smoking article packaging" ("the BAT Patent") which claims a method of re-sealing the contents in that packaging. The Dunhill branded cigarettes referred to above were sold in packaging which utilised the BAT Patent and applied the BAT Design.

The plaintiffs in both the JTI Matter and the BAT Matter assert common law rights of goodwill in the get-up of their products in addition to their statutory rights.

The JTI Matter

JTI complains of the effect upon these trade mark registrations of the Packaging Act and of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 ("the Packaging Regulations") made under the Packaging Act. JTI contends that the effect is, under pain of offence and civil penalty provisions contained in the Packaging Act, to require the elimination of all distinguishing features of its tobacco packaging and to permit, on the area of packaging remaining after the health warnings, the use only of the brand or business name or variant name (eg "Camel") in small plain font[1] against a background in a drab colour known as Pantone 448C[2].

JTI seeks declaratory relief that in its application to the JTI registered trade marks the Packaging Act (and thus the Packaging Regulations made thereunder[3]) is invalid. JTI also complains of the effect of the Packaging Act upon what it claims are its common law rights in the get-up of its products. To the defence, in which the Commonwealth pleads that s 51(xxxi) is not engaged with respect to the Packaging Act, JTI pleads and demurs[4], and its demurrer is set down before the Full Court.

On the hearing of the demurrer there were interventions by Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Each intervener supported the submissions by the Commonwealth as to the absence of any "acquisition" as required by s 51(xxxi).


  1. Regulation 2.4.1.
  2. Regulation 2.2.1(2).
  3. Wotton v Queensland (2012) 86 ALJR 246 at 252–253 [22]–[23]; 285 ALR 1 at 8; [2012] HCA 2.
  4. As permitted by r 27.07.4 of the High Court Rules 2004.