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: Counterfeiting Luxury: Exposing the Myths
Author: [Ledbury Research]
Source:

Anti-Counterfeiting Group (ACG)
http://www.a-cg.org/guest/pdf/Counterfeiting_Luxury_2007_Report.pdf

Year: 2007

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Apparel and Shoes, Brands (deceptive counterfeits), Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Fashion Accessories, Luxury Goods, Watches
Country/Territory: United Kingdom
Objective: To look at consumer attitudes to buying fake luxury goods, spending habits and possible deterrents.
Sample: 2.000+ consumers
Methodology: Online survey, focus groups

Main Findings

The study finds that, in 2007, 5% of the population bought a fake of a "top ten" luxury brand. There is very little to distinguish demographically between those that have bought fakes and those that have not: buyers of pirated luxury brands are just as likely to be employed, in lower/higher income households as their counterparts that do not buy fakes.

The most popular fakes are: clothing, shoes, watches, leather goods, and jewellery. Fakes are either bought domestically (with 47% having bought them from market stalls; and 29% from the online marketplace eBay UK), or while travelling in Europe (45%), India/China (10%; 8%), or the rest of the Far East/world (19%; 23%). 31% of consumers report having bought fakes thinking that they were the real thing. Overall, just 17% of respondents are confident that they can tell the difference between a genuine and a fake product.

The social acceptance of fakes has risen dramatically: while in 2006 just 44% of fake buyers agreed that they told their family/friends that the counterfeit item they were wearing was in fact a fake, in 2007 64% affirm doing so. Similarly, look-alikes are considered a benevolent force, making "designerwear more affordable" (52% agreeing with this statement); just 39% believe that look-alikes damage the brands.

The two deterrents against counterfeit buying perceived as most effective are: "the fact that (counterfeiting) proceeds are going towards criminal gains" (assessed as effective by 72% of fake buyers); and "making it a criminal offence to buy/possess fakes" (70%). However, the latter is opposed by 68% of the population.

The authors recommend targeted consumer awareness campaigns highlighting, inter alia, the following message: "by buying fakes, you are funding organised crime - including terrorism".

[Date Added: Oct 22, 2008 ]