Philip Morris Brands SARL v. Uruguay
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
No. ARB/10/7 (2016)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Between 2008 and 2009, Uruguay (defendant) enacted two imposing restrictions on tobacco products. Under the Single Presentation Requirement (SPR), Uruguay restricted cigarette brands sold in Uruguay to sell under a single variant of cigarette. Before the adoption of the SPR, the subsidiary of Philip Morris Brands SARL (plaintiff) located in Uruguay sold six different brands with 13 variants. Under the 80/80 Regulation, Uruguay required cigarette packages to display health warnings covering at least 80 percent of the packages; the remaining 20 percent of the package was available for trademarks. Philip Morris Brands brought a challenge under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Switzerland and Uruguay, alleging these two public laws deprived Philip Morris Brands of its intellectual property rights and constituted an expropriation. Philip Morris Brands argued the existence of a public health issue does not exempt Uruguay from its obligation to pay Philip Morris Brands for the loss the brand suffered due to the changes in the public health laws.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.