Most Australians found the argument that plain packaging laws amounted to an unconstitutional acquisition of tobacco companies’ intellectual property ridiculous. Ultimately, the courts agreed, but the argument does follow from the premises often accepted by people who emphasise the primacy of property rights: that the government can’t take them without compensation, and that they include rights to commercially exploit trademarks and copyrights.

Ideas do not have the same dynamics as real property (scarcity). Rather than being an example of property rights, copyright is an example of government undermining property rights. The concept of real property rights predate nation states by thousands of years. Just because a government says that black is white does not make it so. “Intellectual property” are weasel words, of the same tradition as “people’s democratic republic”.

Are you saying people shouldn’t be able to bring forth court cases that the population thinks are ridiculous?

No, I’m agreeing with pjc50 that claims like “the security and protection of property under the rule of law should be a human right” deserve skepticism, if they mean that Western democracies should provide more legal protection for property rights than they already do, because that’s what the tobacco companies wanted and it would have been bad if they got it.