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: ACG Attitudes Survey 2003 - How do fakes affect the business world?
Author: [Maxima International]
Source:

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

Year: 2003

Details

Subject/Type: Counterfeiting
Focus: Aircraft and Auto Parts, Apparel and Shoes, Beverages, Brands (non-deceptive counterfeits), Consumer Electronics / Electronic Equipment, Fashion Accessories, Food Products, Medicines and Medical Devices, Necessity Goods, Personal Care Products, Tobacco Products, Toys, Watches
Country/Territory: United Kingdom
Objective: To examine UK business attitudes and responses to counterfeiting.
Sample: City analysts, marketing directors and brand protection managers
Methodology: Interviews

Main Findings

City analysts felt that the following products were most vulnerable to counterfeiting: watches (with 94% of city analysts agreeing that watches were particularly vulnerable to being counterfeited), perfumes/cosmetics (92%), designer clothing/sportswear/footwear (92%), leather goods (90%), spectacles (90%), DVDs/videos (90%), music/sound recordings (88%), computer software/games (88%) and toys (71%).

Computer hardware (25%), financial services (25%), durable/white goods (23%), aviation spare parts (13%) and insurance (13%) were deemed less prone to being faked.

According to the city analysts surveyed, companies should focus more on the following issues to protect their brands: “grey/parallel markets in their goods” (83%), “monitoring the web” (67%), and “protecting patents/trademarks” (67%).


A majority of brand protection managers thought that the biggest driver for counterfeit demand was consumer perception that the price of genuine articles is too high. 93% believed that the main drivers for fake supply were the high profit margin and the relatively low risk involved; over half cited lack of government action as a major contributor to the supply of counterfeits. 88% would like to see the government doing more to protect brands.

The Internet is apparently not a major concern of brand protection managers: one in four of them was not concerned with the sale of fakes on the Internet, and nearly 20% of the companies represented did not even monitor the Internet. Only 4% used specialist Internet surveillance companies to assist then in protecting their brands online.

58% of brand protection managers thought that their brands could be counterfeited with some ease, if not extremely easily.

[Date Added: Nov 20, 2008 ]