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: Les PME et la lutte Anti-Contrefaçon
Author: [Confédération Générale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises]
Year: 2007

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Barriers, Brands (deceptive counterfeits), Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits)
Country/Territory: France
Objective: To examine what proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises is affected by counterfeiting, and what measures can be taken to respond to it.
Sample: Small and medium-sized enterprises
Methodology: Online survey

Main Findings

35% of French small and medium-sized enterprises are victims of counterfeiting. Half of those affected by counterfeiting have taken legal measures to defend their intellectual property (IP) assets. The average duration of such a judicial procedure (perceived as costly by 57%) is between one and three years for 57%. A high number of victims (71.5%) reports that the compensation awarded to them was lower than the damages sustained due to the infringement.

Almost two in three victims of counterfeiting decided to review their business strategy: 43% of them reinforced their IP rights protection, 14% plan more product innovation, and 7% changed their commercial/marketing strategy. 36% did not change their strategy in response to the IP infringements suffered.

The entities perceived as most effective to take action in IP matters are: lawyers (35%), IP consultants (33%), judges (17%), and bailiffs (15%). Preferred repressive entities are: customs (39%), followed by the “Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes” (27%), the gendarmerie (20%), and the police (14%).

According to respondents, measures helpful in combating counterfeiting are: more information about counterfeited products, e-mail alerts regarding counterfeits, special IP insurance, lower cost of international IP registration, and a more active role of the national industrial property office.

[Date Added: Nov 20, 2008 ]

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=communications https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/