About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

IP Outreach Research > IP Use and Awareness

Reference

Title: Survey on Business Attitudes to Intellectual Property 2005
Author: [Mercado Solutions Associates Ltd]
Source:

Intellectual Property Department (Government of Hong Kong SAR)
http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/promotion_edu/survey.htm

Year: 2005

Details

Subject/Type: IP Knowledge, IP Protection
Focus: Commercialisation, Economic / Financial Impact, Enforcement, Outreach / Education
Country/Territory: Hong Kong, China
Objective: To investigate businesses’ awareness of and attitudes towards intellectual property rights.
Sample: 1.206 business establishments
Methodology: Mail survey

Main Findings

Intellectual property (IP) awareness of Hong Kong business establishments is generally high and has changed little since 2004: in 2005, about nine in ten respondents were aware that IP covered trademarks (98.7%), copyright (99.8%), patents (98.3%) and designs (88.2%). Consistent with 2004 results, 95.6% considered that it was very or quite necessary to protect IP rights in Hong Kong's business environment. The awareness of IP protection legislation continued to be high (at 92%). As in 2004, an overwhelming majority of businesses surveyed (96.1%) considered IPs valuable assets of a company. Accordingly, 93% (versus 88.4% a year ago) agreed that protecting/registering IP was beneficial to their company (as a protection to prevent others from copying/using their IP; as a means of building up reputation/goodwill, and of earning income).

While 37.4% of respondents (versus 40% in 2004) considered the IP protection in place adequate, more than half (55.7%, versus 54.6% in 2004) did not. While support for "raising awareness of IP rights protection/strengthening education" (at 76.4%), and for increasing penalties for infringements (at 52.1%) has remained stable, stronger enforcement (at 62.2%, versus 54.4% in 2004) seems to have become more important.

22.9% of business establishments (up from 12.5% a year ago) reported having registered IP (trademarks, patens or designs), whereas a majority (77.1%) had not done so. Larger businesses were more likely to have registered IP. Staff specifically responsible for IP management is still not too common: only about one in five businesses (up from one in ten) reported having any employee(s) responsible for IP management. 48.8% of respondents (versus 40% in 2004) would check the Hong Kong trademark register before using/adopting their own trademark, while 51.2% would not; 77.9% (versus 80.9% in 2004) reported searching the patent register so as to avoid infringing others' inventions.

This year, more businesses (89.6%, up from 85.4%) considered IP protection as helpful to the development of local creative industries. As in 2004, about three in four respondents (73.4%) agreed that IP rights protection was helpful for enhancing the creation of business opportunity and wealth, and 71.1% (up from 67.2%) considered it helpful for Hong Kong's overall economic development.

Generally, most business establishments were aware of the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) and its activities; however, knowledge about specific services and activities varied. The most common misconceptions of IPD were that: it receives complaints regarding IP violations (58.4%, similar to 2004); it investigates IP infringements (46.2%, unchanged), and that it is responsible for criminal justice of IP (33.5%, new). The most effective channel for the IPD's advertising and promotional campaigns continued to be TV (with 90.4% encountering IPD activities in that medium), followed by print ad/promotional materials (56.3%, up from 40.9%), radio (51.6%, virtually unchanged), and seminars/exhibitions (23.1%, up from 11.7%). As a year ago, favourable and unfavourable opinions regarding the effectiveness of IPD's outreach activities were evenly split (43.4% considered them effective, while 48.5% did not).

[Date Added: Aug 18, 2008 ]