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: Global Survey on Counterfeiting and Piracy
Author: Joseph Lampel and Ajay Bhalla [City University, London], Pushkar Jha [University of Newcastle]
Source:

International Chamber of Commerce Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP)
http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/BASCAP/Pages/BASCAP%20Survey_%20Final%20Report_29%20January07.pdf

Year: 2007

Details

Subject/Type: IP Protection
Focus: Economic / Financial Impact, Enforcement
Country/Territory: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, International, Japan, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Pakistan, Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan Province of China, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Viet Nam
Objective: To evaluate corporate perceptions of the degree to which countries protect/fail to protect intellectual property from the threat of piracy and counterfeiting.
Sample: Corporate decision makers from 48 large firms trading globally, belonging to approximately 27 different industries
Methodology: Survey

Main Findings

When asked to list the top five countries with the most favourable intellectual property (IP) environments (i.e. the set of legislative, enforcement, and public awareness dimensions that together make up the intellectual property system of a particular country), survey respondents ranked the USA highest (followed by the UK, Germany, France and Japan). Good IP environment rankings are primarily based on two elements: firstly, an effective role of the media in raising public awareness of the importance of combating piracy and counterfeiting, and, secondly, strong public cooperation with enforcement agencies in combating piracy and counterfeiting.

The list of the top five countries with the least favourable IP environments is headed by China (followed by Russia, India, Brazil and Indonesia). The main factors contributing to an unfavourable IP environment rating are: firstly, the country's unwillingness to fulfil its international IP obligations; secondly, local media disregard for the importance of combating piracy and counterfeiting, and, thirdly, lack of cooperation of the public with IP enforcement agencies.

The amount of resources a government commits to enforcement, and clear government policies against piracy seem to be key factors determining the perception of a country's IP environment. Given the fact that respondents felt that legislation protecting IP is adequate even in countries with poor IP environments, the challenge these countries face is not so much IP legislation per se, but rather the lack of enforcement. Respondents also indicated that additional resources should be primarily allocated to enforcement, as opposed to legislation and public information.

A country's IP policies, enforcement, and public cooperation are found to have an impact on companies' decisions regarding the location of product development activities, technology transfer, and plant location. According to the authors, this suggests that long-term damage to a country's attractiveness as a location for high value-added economic activity outweighs perceived temporary economic benefits from piracy and counterfeiting.

The survey authors furthermore highlight the important role of the media, both in increasing public awareness about the need for IP protection and in informing the public of the consequences of infringement (which seems to be an increasingly important method for combating piracy and counterfeiting, above all for businesses where IP content is embedded). Proactive media can act as a powerful catalyst reinforcing the interaction among legislation, enforcement and education.

[Date Added: Aug 18, 2008 ]