Plain Packaging in Canada Update - Also, delisted cigars


Recommended Posts

I have found that governments produce zero wealth and prosperity. They are not entrepreneurial, but monopolistic. They do produce misery, apathy... and thankfully black markets.

Viva the black market!

I always get a kick out of 'government producing' jobs. To the contrary. In my country this plane packaging stunt would be prefaced as bolstering the 'butcher' paper industry. As long as the people buy the loads of manure put out by governments as the rational for services, fairness; populations will see less of everything.

Look no further than Cuba! Someone post up their constitution. Probably reads like it was written by God incarnate!

If bullshit was a valuable commodity, governments would indeed be wealthy!

-Piggy

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's a bloody disgrace.  Another country falls to the funless/friendless/sexless middle aged white public servants who's only pleasure in their miserable lives is taking away the pleasure of othe

I've been yelling about this for years, it affects the US as well. Halfwheel is pretty much the only online media site that posts smoking bans, and almost every day there's a new ban in a city or

You know it is coming right??? Cigar smoking, taking some risk with your life for the sake of your livelihood, own enjoyment is... or should be, your own right! Your own business. Freedom is

3 hours ago, Bijan said:

If you accept the fact that the government has the right to ban tobacco (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying once this is accepted, the cigar companies don't have a leg to stand on), which is essentially what they're doing, although the government is pussyfooting and doing it in smaller steps, then the legal arguments don't hold any water.

A trademark like a patent is a sort of legal monopoly. An exclusive right to sell or market a product or invention. By your logic no government could ever ban a product where some person or company holds a patent or trademark because they have granted the "right" to sell or market that product. As much as we don't like the results in this case, I can probably think of some product or other that is better off banned (like land mines maybe) and trademarks and patents shouldn't enter into it.

Now, you’re mixing up a few things. If you check the available literature there is and has been in fact a lot of legal controversy (as well as the odd philosophical treatise...) about the “public’s“, i.e. a govt’s right to “ban” tobacco and tobacco smoking. And, actually, tobacco isn’t banned, still even not in Canada. It is a perfectly legal, tradable product!

So, in turn, if you, as a private entity, are holding a trademark for a certain brand and certain market, for a in that market legal product, then it is - from a legal standpoint - highly questionable whether public action can (or should) be taken unilaterally via a government to hinder you in your right to perform business, in that you’re not allowed to use your branding and/or corporate identity. And that’s in fact one of the main aspects that has been subject of the ongoing legal debate.

Government may set rules (like e.g. age restrictions, technical norms, measures of consumer protection and food safety, etc., and, sure, it may even ban a product - mind you - on legal and not purely political grounds!). But it shouldn’t be allowed to make said legal product totally unidentifiable and unscrutinizable, in fact basically kill its identity.

Furthermore, as a trademark holder you are even obliged to actually use your trademark in a respective market. Otherwise your trademark rights there will become obsolete over time and expire. Unsure how that is going to be resolved as, here, certain rights and obligations of market actors are very clearly colliding with such measures taken. I have major difficulties to follow current judicial decisions.

Would govts try to completely ban tobacco, they would legally open up a whole new can of worms. They know why they are backing off, for the time being...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fugu you raise a lot of good points. But this is the history in Canada: no advertising for around 20+ years now. Burdensome warning labels with pictures. No display of products in any stores with the exception of dedicated brick and mortars and that not in view of minors.

The stated goal of this law is to decimate tobacco sales. Hard to accept that and then complain about the particular means.

Except coffee and tobacco practically everything else has been banned including alcohol at one time or another.

Edit: I would guess massive tax revenues as the reason for backing off.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bijan said:

@Fugu you raise a lot of good points. But this is the history in Canada: no advertising for around 20+ years now. Burdensome warning labels with pictures. No display of products in any stores with the exception of dedicated brick and mortars and that not in view of minors.

The stated goal of this law is to decimate tobacco sales. Hard to accept that and then complain about the particular means.

Except coffee and tobacco practically everything else has been banned including alcohol at one time or another.

Edit: I would guess massive tax revenues as the reason for backing off.

Yup.  B&M's were even prohibited from selling Coffee grounds/beans as it could entice the sale of tobacco while buying the coffee.  It's been death by a thousand cuts.  No wonder the last LCDH's called it quits.  And the one in Montreal at least had indoor smoking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bijan said:

@Fugu you raise a lot of good points. But this is the history in Canada: no advertising for around 20+ years now. Burdensome warning labels with pictures. No display of products in any stores with the exception of dedicated brick and mortars and that not in view of minors.

Absolutely, and not much different to what’s happening here, at least gradually moving in that same direction (and one of the reasons why I think HSA and other producers can’t take a single market lightly, and are indeed taking this seriously. As can also be seen why they challenged a small market such as Australia back then). But in all this, plain packaging sets a whole new paradigm. Up until then, and despite all obstacles, you could still offer your original product. From plain packaging on, and that’s a first, producers are forced to alter their very product and design and lose their branding.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.