A Note on Cigarettes and Plain Packaging

For this post I will be omitting legalese and in simple words attempt to explain why the breach of Intellectual Property rights due to the imposition of plain tobacco/cigarettes packaging by the Irish government is a very poor argument.

i) The Irish Constitution guarantees the citizen the right to life.

ii) EU and national consumer protection legislation protect consumers from misleading advertising and danger to health.

iii) Poisoning is a serious criminal offence.

I was a smoker on and off for a good total of 20 years of my life. When I started smoking everyone did; we were made to believe smoking would not only make us hip and socially acceptable, but it would also take us on a great adventure in the mountains, in cowboy attire, preferably on a horse.

CSI MANUFACTURING v DUNN & BRADSTREET: Coleman v MGN round II

Mr Coleman was unfortunate enough to have his picture publicized next to an article about hooligans and drunkards by the Daily Mirror in 2003. That picture was also allegedly publicized in the internet edition of the said distribution, open to the worldwide public by subscription – but did that actually result in absolute geographical restriction? (read below). Mr Coleman claimed damages for defamation, damages for breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty and breach of statutory duty. 9 years later, the Supreme Court could not be furnished with evidence of the internet publication by the plaintiff (and obviously hard to ascertain the defendant kept an archive of publications so old for the sake of discovery), and therefore, since both the defendant and the paper’s audience were restricted to the UK, it lacked jurisdiction to decide in favour of the plaintiff.

Passing Off: Little Pots of Doom

Update 14/12/2013: The High Court judgment disclosing Brennan Bakeries used another packaging/supplying company (Doyle’s Quality Products) has now been published here, and can be discussed openly hereafter.

Everybody should be acquainted with the infamous, by now, bread wars (McCambridge v Brennan (2011), affirmed in the SC), where Brennan Bakeries’ stoneground bread was held capable of passing off as that of McCambridge, against the Consumer Protection Act, 2007. In the said case the products were seemingly the same, same type of bread, same shape… and so was the packaging.

S71 (2) of the 2007 Act gives any person the right to come forth and put the blame on a product, if they feel they have been deceived. That alone should make producers very cautious as to the looks of their packaging; packaging companies should also be careful though, not to design similar packaging for clients that fall within the same production group. And the question has arisen, if someone has a claim in damages, taking all the facts into account, should packaging companies share the liability?

Too Old to Rock’n’Roll, too Young to Make a Will?

NOTE: The following article is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor am I in a position to give same. It is nothing but a summary of my observations and is merely an expression of my opinion, in my personal capacity. Specific reference to statutes and case law has been purposely omitted. Should you need help with drafting your will and a layout of your options, please seek professional legal advice.

When we turn 18, the last thing on our minds is where our – usually non-existent – property would go when we leave this vain world. As we grow up, responsibilities multiply and so do we, but that 18 year-old somehow still manages to speak the words in our head: ‘I’ll make a will when I’m old, because that’s what old people do’.

That might have been the case twenty, maybe even ten years ago, but technology has progressed to a point that I am afraid this is not where things stand anymore.

‘The clothes do not make the man’ …

 

…tell that to a woman! About a month ago I took the children out shopping, for the usual extra pieces they tend to grow out of during the summer (a pair of trousers here, a shirt there, and so on). Next tends to be one of my favourite spots for this purpose as they tend to make decently sewn clothes that my children will put up with – as they are old enough not to like anything that their friends won’t approve of . While they were choosing their garments of preference I thought I should take a look at the women’s section, one never knows what they might find; …I did not like what I found!

There it was, hanging from the rack, my favourite signature L.K. Bennett dress (which I had paid for dearly in September), in, what appears to be, cheap material and an awkward shiny lining – pictures at the bottom of the page. I cannot describe the feeling of shock, it felt as though someone stuck their hand in my pocket and robbed me off my money. I contacted L.K. Bennett and enquired about this mishap. They knew about the dress but they had taken no action.

This brings me to the (by now, infamous) case of Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores (2007), where Mrs Justice Finlay Geoghegan of the High Court ruled in Karen Millen’s favour, after Dunnes were clearly and beyond any doubt guilty or purchasing three items of the KM stores (two shirts of blue and brown stripes each and a steel grey top), reproduced the patterns and the products as a whole using materials with an almost identical print.