The final award in Bridgestone v. Panama (dated 14 August 2020) is the latest instalment in a line of cases where corporate actors have challenged intellectual property measures and court decisions affecting intellectual property rights before investment tribunals. Bridgestone involved the latter i.e. a court decision involving intellectual property rights. The facts of the case… Continue reading Bridgestone v. Panama: Investment Tribunals are not Appellate Courts
This week, I continue with my analysis of the Appellate Body’s decision on the trademark issues in the Australia – Plain Packaging case. (For previous posts in this regard, see here and here). In this post, the focus will be on whether it is necessary to consider alternative measures when deciding whether an encumbrance is justifiable pursuant… Continue reading Is it Necessary to Consider Alternative Measures under Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement?
Last week, I blogged about the recent decision of the WTO’s Appellate Body that upheld Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measures. While the Appellate Body largely agreed with the earlier interpretation of both Articles 16(1) and 20 of the TRIPS Agreement by a dispute settlement panel (hereinafter, panel), there are some notable differences in the way… Continue reading Does Article 20 of TRIPS require a Rigid & Exact Set of Factors to Determine Whether an Encumbrance is Unjustifiable?
This is a quick update regarding the Australia – Plain Packaging case. I have commented on the earlier decision of the WTO’s dispute settlement panel in a short piece available here. In its report, the panel upheld Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measures (TPP measures) as compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. However, two of the complainants… Continue reading NEWSFLASH: WTO’S Appellate Body Upholds Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Measures