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: What should be done about counterfeit medicines?
Author: [PatientView]
Source:

http://www.patient-view.com/Counterfeit%20Medicines.pdf

Year: 2007

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Medicines and Medical Devices
Country/Territory: Belgium, France, Germany, International, Italy, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), United Kingdom
Objective: To discover views on counterfeit medicines in Europe and strategies to combat them.
Sample: 236 executives of patient organisations and other health campaigners from 34 European countries
Methodology: E-mail survey

Main Findings

55% of surveyed patient/health advocacy groups believe that trade in counterfeit medicines is a minor problem; 27% consider it no problem at all, and 18% a serious problem.

83% of respondents report receiving no information from the public about counterfeit medicines. 17% have received either few or some reports from the public concerning counterfeit medicines.

Just 4% say that media coverage about counterfeit medicines is regular; 65% report that their country’s media rarely or never carry stories about counterfeit medicines. Seven in ten participants are unaware of any national or international initiatives on counterfeit medicines.

Majorities of respondents are in favour of the following measures to prevent counterfeit medicines: better tracking/testing of medicines leaving the manufacturer before reaching the end-user; efforts to raise the public’s awareness of counterfeit medicines; and more enforcement of regulations/legislation. Respondents would like the following individuals or agencies to do more to prevent counterfeit medicines: Internet-based suppliers; pharmaceutical companies; drug regulatory agencies; governments / ministries of health; and wholesalers.

[Date Added: Apr 3, 2009 ]