... in domestic court anyway. From The Guardian:
Australia's highest court has endorsed cigarette plain-packaging laws that will force tobacco companies to remove branding from their products.
Tobacco companies British American Tobacco, Britain's Imperial Tobacco, Philip Morris and Japan Tobacco challenged the laws in Australia's high court, claiming the rules were unconstitutional because they effectively extinguished the companies' intellectual property rights.
The court found Australia's laws to force companies to remove all branding and sell tobacco only in generic olive green packets, which also carry graphic health warnings, were legal and did not breach trademark rights.
When the reasons are released, there will be two things to look for.
First, the decision might examine the question of what rights are conferred under Australian trademark law. The key question is whether Australian law grants the holder of a trademark right the affirmative right to use that trademark, as compared to merely a right to exclude third parties from use. If it is forthcoming, the answer to this question will be particularly relevant to the investment treaty claim, in which Philip Morris is arguing that the effect of the measure is to expropriate trademark and other rights.
Second, in determining the nature and scope of trademark rights under Australian law, it is possible that the Court will interpret the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). If the Court does so, the reasoning used might be influential in both the WTO and investment treaty claim.