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: Utilização Da Propriedade Industrial - Um Estudo Sobre Inovação em Portugal
Author: Manuel Mira Godinho, Tiago Santos Pereira, Vítor Corado Simões, Sandro F Mendonça and Vitorino Manuel dos Santos Sousa [CISEP]
Source:

Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial
http://www.marcasepatentes.pt/index.php?section=270

Year: 2003

Details

Subject/Type: IP Knowledge, IP Protection
Focus: Commercialisation, Patents
Country/Territory: Portugal
Objective: To analyse the use/non-use of industrial property by enterprises and research institutions in Portugal, and to find out about their attitudes, behaviour and expectations towards patents, trademarks and designs.
Sample: 724 Portugal-based enterprises and 27 Portugal-based research institutions
Methodology: Postal questionnaires

Main Findings

A majority of surveyed enterprises consider industrial property of low importance: 78% perceived designs as of low importance (the rest perceived them as either of medium or high importance), 73% found patents and utility models unimportant, and 54% considered trademarks of low importance.

Since 1990, 4.2% of enterprises have registered patents or utility models, and 9.6% plan to do so in the future; 17.7% have registered trademarks, and 22.5% plan to do so in the future; 2.6% have registered industrial designs, and 8.2% plan to do so in the future.

The most commonly cited obstacles to registering patents, utility models and designs were: “cost too high” (29.1%), “do not possess any protectable industrial property” (28.4%), and “do not have sufficient information about the industrial property system” (25.6%).

The most commonly cited obstacles to registering trademarks were: “sector characteristics and speed of innovation not conducive to registering trademarks” (33.3%), “cost too high” (30.1%), and “do not have sufficient information about the industrial property system” (29.8%).

39% reported being aware of the national industrial property office (INPI); the larger the business the more likely it was to know the INPI: 87% of businesses with 500+ employees were aware of the INPI. By contrast, two in three small businesses were unaware of the INPI. 81% have not used the INPI’s services and do not plan to use them either. Advisory and informational services were the most used INPI services.


52% of surveyed research institutions claimed to have active or pending patents. However, close to two thirds reported not having any industrial property strategy. Industrial property crated at these institutions is in most cases owned by the institution, rather than the researcher. Licensing revenues are shared between the institution and the researcher in over 90% of institutions. Except one institution, all surveyed research establishments reported knowing the INPI. Of those, 84% have used or plan to use its services.

[Date Added: Dec 5, 2008 ]