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: Combating Product Counterfeiting: An investigation into the likely effectiveness of a demand-orientated approach
Author: Birgit Leisen [University of Wisconsin], Alexander Nill [University of Nevada]
Source:

American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings 12: 271-277

Year: 2001

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Fashion Accessories, Luxury Goods, Medicines and Medical Devices, Watches
Country/Territory: United States of America
Objective: To investigate the effects of perceived product-related attributes, perceived risks and awareness of societal consequences on the purchase intent of counterfeit goods.
Sample: 144 MBA students at a university in the south-western United States
Methodology: Self-administered questionnaire

Main Findings

The factors determining the intent to purchase counterfeit goods vary with product category.

For Tylenol, a painkiller, the greater the consumer’s perceived financial risk (belief that the product is not worth the money) and performance risk (belief that the product may not function properly or reliably) are, the lower the purchase intent of the counterfeit is. Neither perceived consumer rating of the shopping environment, nor perceived product attributes rating (whether the product looks/performs like the original) were found to influence purchase intent for counterfeit Tylenol.

For Ray Ban sunglasses, the higher the consumer’s perceived shopping environment rating and perceived product attributes rating are, the higher the purchase intent of the counterfeit is. Perceived financial and performance risks were not found to influence purchase intent for counterfeit Ray Bans.

For Rolex watches, the higher the consumer’s perceived shopping environment rating, the higher the purchase intent of the counterfeit is. The greater the perceived financial and performance risks are, the lower the purchase intent of the Rolex counterfeits is. Perceived product attributes were not found to influence purchase intent for counterfeit Rolexes.

The consumer’s perceived social risk (consumer belief that she/he will face social ostracism or peer ridicule when buying the counterfeit product) and legal risk (consumer belief that she/he will face negative legal consequences as a result of purchasing the counterfeit product) were not found to influence purchase intent of any of the three counterfeit products examined.


Given the findings, the author highlights the fact that no generic anti-counterfeiting campaign would be successful and that an anti-counterfeit campaign therefore needs to be product specific. The producer of Tylenol might highlight the inadequate performance of the fake Tylenol and its potential harmfulness to the consumers’ health.

Anti-counterfeiting campaigns directed at Ray Ban consumers should focus on discrediting the shopping environment (by portraying it as appalling) and the product attributes (e.g., lack of UV protection). Campaigns against counterfeit Rolexes should also focus on discrediting the shopping environment, and on likely performance problems that together would clearly mark the purchase of the counterfeit as a waste of money. Playing up social or legal risks and societal consequences would not be effective for any of the three goods.

[Date Added: Dec 14, 2009 ]