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: fischerAppelt technologyTrend 2009: Plagiate - Eine Bedrohung der deutschen Wirtschaft?
Author: [fischerAppelt Kommunikation GmbH]
Source:

Aktionskreis gegen Produkt- und Markenpiraterie (APM e.V.)
http://www.markenpiraterie-apm.de/files/fischerappelt.pdf

Year: 2009

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Apparel and Shoes, Brands (deceptive counterfeits), Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Consumer Electronics / Electronic Equipment, Mechanical / Electrical Engineering, Necessity Goods
Country/Territory: Germany
Objective: To establish the extent to which German companies are affected by counterfeiting and what efforts they are undertaking to combat them.
Sample: 800 companies from different activity sectors
Methodology: Online survey

Main Findings

76% of German companies surveyed report being affected by counterfeiting. One in three affected companies says that counterfeiting affects them seriously or very seriously. Legal departments are most often responsible for dealing with counterfeits (in 77% of cases), followed by management (46%) and marketing/communication (33%). Over half of the companies surveyed have no preventive anti-counterfeiting strategy – they just react on an ad-hoc basis to counterfeiting incidents.

The most popular measures taken to fight against counterfeits are legal proceedings (used by 91%), followed by external communication and consumer education (43%), internal awareness raising (38%), membership in business associations (34%), technological solutions (34%), and political action/lobbying (28%). The companies integrating counterfeiting into their corporate communication strategy (49%) rely on the media (78%), point of sale activities (57%), online activities (43%), spots and advertising (22% each) to raise awareness about the topic. Reasons for not communicating about counterfeits are “to avoid giving publicity to fakes” and “preference to focus on positive topics”.

When asked why consumers buy counterfeits, companies indicate the following reasons: “products look identical” (70%), “price” (63%), “consumers do not know that product is a fake” (52%), and “consumers do not want to pay a premium for the brand” (43%). Just 4% affirm that consumers buy fakes since they do not notice any quality difference compared to the genuine product. Respondents consider clothes the most popular fakes (87%), followed by necessity goods (52%) and technological goods (46%).

Respondents think that the following product/brand attributes best differentiate originals from fakes: innovation (78%), quality (69%), warranty (67%), creativity (62%), exclusivity (44%), excellence in design (22%), and usability (13%).

[Date Added: Mar 9, 2010 ]