## Facts

- Tobacco manufacturers challenged the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), related regulations, and an information standard that mandated standardized “plain” tobacco packaging.
- The regime prescribed pack color, finish, and dimensions; required large graphic health warnings; and limited brand names to a specified font, size, color, and placement.
- The measures significantly restricted the use of registered and unregistered trade marks, trade dress, and related goodwill, without transferring formal title to those rights.
- The plaintiffs filed constitutional challenges in the High Court’s original jurisdiction, alleging the regime effected an acquisition of property without just terms contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution.
- One proceeding involved a demurrer to the Commonwealth’s defense; another reserved questions to the Full Court; both were resolved without a trial of facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs’ trade marks, get-up, goodwill, and asserted rights to control product presentation constituted “property” for purposes of s 51(xxxi).
2. Whether the plain-packaging regime effected an “acquisition of property” by the Commonwealth or others, as distinct from mere restriction or extinguishment of use.
3. If there was an acquisition, whether the absence of compensation rendered the scheme invalid for failure to provide “just terms.”

## Decision

- The Court (majority) upheld the validity of the plain-packaging regime and entered judgment for the Commonwealth; plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs.
- The majority held that, even assuming the interests relied on were “property,” the scheme did not effect an “acquisition” within s 51(xxxi).
- The majority concluded no proprietary “benefit or advantage” accrued to the Commonwealth or any third party corresponding to the plaintiffs’ deprivation; the “just terms” question therefore did not arise.
- Heydon J dissented, reasoning that commandeering packaging space and controlling the use of marks conferred a sufficient proprietary advantage on the Commonwealth to constitute an acquisition.

## Legal Principles

- For s 51(xxxi), identifying “property” is not enough; there must be an “acquisition,” which requires that another party obtain an identifiable proprietary benefit or advantage.
- A law may severely restrict, sterilize, or reduce the commercial value of intellectual property and goodwill without amounting to an acquisition if no proprietary interest is conferred on the Commonwealth or others.
- Government-mandated warnings and standardized presentation requirements can operate as regulatory controls over marketing and use, rather than as transfers of property interests.
- Where no acquisition is shown, constitutional requirements of “just terms” compensation are not engaged, and validity turns on ordinary legislative competence.

## Conclusion

The High Court sustained Australia’s tobacco plain-packaging scheme by treating it as stringent regulation of marketing and trade mark use, not an acquisition of the tobacco companies’ property, because the Commonwealth obtained no proprietary benefit corresponding to the restrictions imposed.


JT Int’l SA v. Commonwealth of Austl., [2012] HCA 43 (Austl. 2012)