An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A
.gov website belongs to an official
government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you've safely
connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive
information only on official, secure websites.
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with,
the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:
PMC Disclaimer
|
PMC Copyright Notice
. 2001 Jan 27;322(7280):237.
Do tobacco companies encourage young people to smoke?
Editor—Accusations made against Philip Morris USA in both an article and an editorial on candy cigarettes are misleading and untrue.1,2 The company is categorically opposed to the use of its trademarks on candy cigarettes. Its position on this issue is consistent and clear. The accusations are false and are not supported by the facts.
We do not permit the unauthorised use of our trademarks, including use on clothing or merchandise. We do not authorise others to use our trademarks in ways that we ourselves are prohibited from doing. We continue to take aggressive action, including the filing of lawsuits, to prevent the use of Philip Morris cigarette brand names or logos on any item marketed to minors, such as candy, video games, and toys.
We have taken steps in over 1800 instances to prevent such unauthorised use of our trademarks. Records for the past three decades show that Philip Morris USA has been vigilant in its efforts to prevent trademark violations, especially on products that may appeal to children. Furthermore, in 1990 we began placing paid advertising in trade journals warning other manufacturers that trademark violations will not be tolerated. In 1995 we began to reward those who bring trademark violations to our attention, and this practice continues today.
The documents cited in Klein and St Clair's study—as well as many documents that these authors ignored—support our position that for many years we have fought against companies violating our trademarks, including World Candies. Philip Morris USA would wholeheartedly support legislative action that would prohibit the manufacture of candy cigarettes or other similar products specifically intended to appeal to children. Moreover, the tobacco settlement agreement strictly prohibits the company, and other major tobacco companies, from opposing this type of legislation (master settlement agreement; exhibit F, #8).
Footnotes
Competing interests: Philip Morris is a global tobacco company.
References
1.Klein JD, St Clair S. Do candy cigarettes encourage young people to smoke? BMJ. 2000;321:362–365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.362. . (5 August.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Glantz SA. The truth about big tobacco in its own words. BMJ. 2000;321:313–314. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.313. . (5 August.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Editor—Merlo's claim in the letter above (which we had seen at www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7257/362#EL2) that Philip Morris (PM) does not permit the unauthorised use of trademarks, including use on clothing or merchandise, is untrue. Whenever cigarette companies are asked about this kind of trademark infringement they deny involvement in it and claim that they protect their trademarks and copyrights aggressively. Merlo also claims that since 1995 the company has rewarded those who report violations. Interestingly, she did not comment on the Marlboro look-alike toy mentioned and pictured in Davis's short piece in the BMJ 's theme issue on smoking.1-1 This “cigarette pack” squirt gun is labelled as “Intended for ages 5 and up.”
We have documents from Philip Morris's own files which show that confectioners still had the company's express written permission to use Philip Morris brand names and designs on candy cigarettes at least as late as 1967 (PM 2501003597-98, PM 2501003621-22). (A selection of documents from Philip Morris's files made public through litigation are contained in the Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository, where they are identified by the numbers cited.) In fact, candy cigarettes bearing the legend “made under the license of Philip Morris Inc” were still marketed in 1975 (PM 2501003561-62). Company documents also establish that Philip Morris's permissive attitude toward having its cigarette trade dress appear on children's products did not end even at that late date.
Although Philip Morris had known since at least 1985 that a confectioner was marketing Westernfield candy cigarettes mimicking the Chesterfield brand, it did not obtain a commitment to stop the infringement until 1990 (PM2501003644, PM 2501003349-55). There were several other instances of Philip Morris not bothering to seek even amicable commitments from confectioners until into the 1990s.1-2–1-5
We would be happy to review other documents establishing Philip Morris's claim if the company were willing to make its complete files available. Otherwise, we are waiting to hear whether Davis has received his award.
1-2.Letter from Barry M Krivisky of Philip Morris to Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation's president Edward L Fenimore re Marlbro candy cigarettes. 12 Apr 1990. (PM 2062101158-59.)
1-3.Letter from Jean Bangerter of Philip Morris to Candy Gum SpA's managing director re imitations of Marlboro and other PM brands. Dec 1990. (PM 2501300795-98.)
1-4.Letter from Elzaburu and De Justo from Philip Morris to Especialidades Nadal SA re Marboro and Chesterfold chocolate cigarettes. Jan 14 1991. (PM 2501300804-06.)
1-5.Letter from Steven C Parrish of Philip Morris to Confetti Fine Confections re sale of Marlboro bubble gum cigarettes. 22 May 1991. (PM 2062100934-35.)
Editor—St Clair and Klein note in the letter above (and at www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7257/362#EL3) that Merlo has not commented on the Marlboro look-alike squirt gun that I wrote about in the BMJ 's theme issue on tobacco.2-1 They also wonder whether I have received a reward from Philip Morris, given Merlo's claim that “In 1995 [Philip Morris] began to reward those who bring trademark violations to our attention, and this practice continues today.”
Before the BMJ published my short piece on the squirt gun along with a photograph of it2-1 I brought this toy to the attention of tobacco industry lawyers on two occasions. On 2 March 1999, while testifying at a trial in a lawsuit against tobacco companies, I presented the squirt gun to the court. The lawyer representing Philip Morris (Bradley Lerman, of the law firm Winston and Strawn) objected but was overruled by the judge. Lerman then cross examined me about the squirt gun, candy cigarettes resembling tobacco cigarettes, and copyright infringement.2-2
At a deposition on 19 May 2000, in another tobacco lawsuit, I again brought the squirt gun to the attention of tobacco company lawyers. I gave them a photograph of the product (identical to that published in the BMJ), and I told them where I bought it. The lawyer representing Philip Morris (Murray Garnick, of the law firm Arnold and Porter) then asked me questions about efforts by the company to protect its trademarks and copyrights.2-3
After bringing the Marlboro look-alike squirt gun to the attention of Philip Morris lawyers in March 1999 and May 2000, and after publishing a short piece about it in the BMJ, I am still awaiting my reward from Philip Morris.
2-2.Testimony of Ronald M Davis in Local 17 International Association of Bridge and Ironworkers Insurance Fund v Philip Morris Inc et al, in US District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Transcript of proceedings, 2 Mar 1999:2233-42.
2-3.Deposition of Ronald M Davis in Howard A Engle et al v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company et al, in Circuit Court of 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. Transcript of proceedings, 19 May 2000:94-5.
