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 Crime

Reference

Title: Pirates of the 21st century - The consumer goods industry under attack
Author: [Valid Research Marktforschung GmbH]
Source:

Ernst & Young
http://www.ey.com/Global/assets.nsf/Germany/Studie_Produktpiraterie_2008_e/$file/Survey_Piracy_engl_2008.pdf

Year: 2008

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Apparel and Shoes, Beverages, Brands (deceptive counterfeits), Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Fashion Accessories, Food Products, Luxury Goods, Personal Care Products, Watches
Country/Territory: Austria, Germany, International, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Switzerland
Objective: To better understand patterns of supply/demand of counterfeit goods and their damage to the consumer goods industry, and to pinpoint solution-oriented approaches for process-oriented brand protection.
Sample: 2.500 consumers from Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Austria; 27 European manufacturers of consumer products
Methodology: Survey (consumers); in-person/online interviews (manufacturers)

Main Findings

The majority of consumers surveyed is fully aware of the dangers and risks associated with counterfeit goods: overall, more than 60% consider there to be important personal risks (accident/health/financial risks), and over three in four are aware of risks to others (involvement of criminal gangs, poor working/environmental standards).

In the last three years, 28% of consumers overall (and 39% of < 35 year olds) have purchased counterfeit products. Counterfeit clothing was most often purchased (by 23%), followed by accessories (11%), cosmetics/personal care and food/beverages (7% each). 40% of counterfeit goods purchasers claim to have unwittingly bought them. 90% consider that buying counterfeit goods is socially acceptable and a mere peccadillo.

The most important reason given for buying counterfeit products is their low price (cited by 82%). Other reasons are: “liking the product” (43%) and “wanting the status symbol” (33%). As quality, safety of use, ethical production principles and sustainability are found to have the biggest potential to make the fundamental differences between genuine/counterfeit goods clear to consumers, communication strategies should emphasise these characteristics to justify the price difference between the fake and the original product.


Companies regard Asia as the main supplier of counterfeit goods: 69% cite China as a country of origin of counterfeits, and 38% other Asian countries; 35% Turkey, and 17% eastern European countries. The main distribution channels for counterfeit goods are “mobile traders/markets” (cited by 41% of companies), followed by retail /wholesale traders (37% / 33%) and the Internet (33%).

Over two in three companies surveyed (78%) are substantially affected by counterfeiting, and counterfeiting risks are generally perceived to be on the increase. Intellectual property rights (IPR) violated by counterfeiters are trademarks (with 85% of companies affected), design rights (70%), copyright (37%) and patents (19%).

Companies consider that more should be done at the political level to combat counterfeiting (with 100% seeing further need for action at this level); 84% want more to be done at the association level, and 81% at the private enterprise level. The most urgently needed countermeasures include: increasing consumer awareness (70%), increasing sanctions (70%), and easier enforcement of IPR under private law (52%).

[Date Added: Nov 20, 2008 ]