WTO体制下公共健康治理和商标保护冲突的评述——以澳大利亚烟草简易包装案为视角

The Analysis of Conflicts of Public Health Governance and Trade Mark Protection under the WTO Regime——Example of the Australia Tobacco Plain Package Case

2012年乌克兰、洪都拉斯、多米尼加就澳大利亚《烟草简易包装法案》等禁止在零售包装及产品上使用商标在争端解决机制下提请磋商。TRIPS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,简易包装抑制商标促销功能的同时,也削弱了商标识别商品来源、防止混淆的功能,可能构成不合理的干扰,而TRIPS第8.1条要求成员方保护公共健康的必要措施与TRIPS相一致,从而难以为澳大利亚援引作为抗辩理由。TBT协定2.2条要求技术法规为实现公共健康的目的,其贸易限制性不得超出必要。简易包装对商标的限制和禁止使用虽可能满足目标正当性的要求,但仍可能因为欠缺科学依据,不相称地限制商标指示来源的核心功能和价值,被认为构成不必要的贸易限制。

The Plain Package Act of Tobacco Products in Australia is disputed by Ukraine and Honduras Under Article 20 of TRIPS forbids the members to lay unjustifiable special requirements on the use of trademarks.The plain package requirement removes the promotion function of trademark,but also reduces its function of identifying the origin of the products,which may constitute unjustifiable restriction.Article 8.1 which requires the Member’s public health measure to be in compliance with TRIPS cannot be used as defense by Australia.Article 2.2 of TBT requires the public heath technical regulations shall not be more trade restrictive than necessary.The Plain Package Act may be deemed as unnecessary measure as there is less trade restrictive measure available although it is used to fulfill public health value.