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: Keine Flaute für Produktpiraten - Motivation und Gefahr beim Fälschungskauf im Internet
Author: [OpSec Security GmbH], [TU München]
Source:

http://www.opsecsecurity.com/files/Studie_OpSec_Security_TU_Munchen_Falschungskauf_im_Internet_0.pdf

Year: 2009

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Consumer Electronics / Electronic Equipment
Country/Territory: Germany
Objective: To investigate consumer buying behaviour and attitudes towards counterfeit consumer electronics.
Sample: 454 Internet users who have made online purchases at least once in the last 6 months
Methodology: Online survey

Main Findings

Survey respondents that buy electronic devices online overwhelmingly prefer originals: only 6% reported having knowingly purchased counterfeit consumer electronics on the Internet, while 94% had not. 80% said that they pay attention not to buy counterfeit electronics.

52.4% believe that fake consumer electronics are potentially dangerous: “device not performing according to specifications” (81%), “fire hazard” (79%), “electric shock” (75%) and “toxicity” (68%) were the most often named potential dangers.

When asked whether they would buy (obviously counterfeit) electronics from a fictitious Asian distributor, just 36% of consumers declined the offer independently of price. 32% of consumers declined to buy similar, but less obvious fakes offered on a fictitious eBay auction. When asked whether these products could be counterfeits, 62% realised that these were in fact counterfeits; however, 21% did not. Of those having knowingly bought counterfeit consumer electronics, almost 70% were able to identify the fakes.

Reasons given for preferring counterfeit consumer electronics were: “original too expensive” (89.6%), “prestige” (39.2%), “original and counterfeit are manufactured in the same place” (39%), “appealing look” (38.3%), “peer pressure” (30%) and “resale” (23.8%). Respondents affirm that consumers of fake electronics hope that counterfeits are: “of reasonable quality and that thus money is saved” (76%), “simply manufacturing overruns” (57%) or “stolen originals” (19%).

Almost four in five consumers are not familiar with the legal implications of buying counterfeit consumer electronics: while 59% think that it is illegal, just 19% (correctly) know that at the moment buying such goods is not prohibited.

Conclusions: about two thirds of respondents accepted buying a counterfeit electronic device if the price was attractive enough. This contradicts the affirmation that 80% pay attention to avoid buying counterfeit electronics. The belief that buying counterfeits is illegal deters only a minority of consumers.

[Date Added: Jun 11, 2009 ]