Tweet

The adverse consequences of counterfeiting.

Written by: Dr. Mohamed Ibrahim

Article Overview: The phenomenon of counterfeiting has increased in recent years with unfavorable impacts.

The adverse consequences of counterfeiting.

It is submitted that counterfeiting is an illegal use or an infringement of intellectual property rights by imitating trademark goods, copyright goods, patent, and design without the prior authorization of the right owner to effect of causing direct loss to the owner in the form of diminished trade revenue. The initial process in the direction of global harmonization of intellectual property protection started with the industrialized countries concern, particularly the U.S in combating counterfeit goods. In historical fact, a draft entitled "agreement on measures to discourage the importation of counterfeit goods" was prepared by the U.S.A and EU in 1979. The main purpose was to combat the unfavorable effect of counterfeiting on trade revenues. In 1982 some industrialized countries prepared a draft entitled "the anti-counterfeiting code." The U.S.A suggested that the said code should be adopted as part of the GATT. However, developing countries under the leadership of Brazil and India contended that intellectual property issues fall outside the ambit of physical goods which is the domain of GATT. They argued that intellectual property deals with intangible property which falls within the jurisdiction of WIPO. The issue raised for consideration is this: what are the effects of importation of counterfeit goods on international trade and whether it could be quantified? The sub-committee on trade of the U.S House of Representatives on the basis of 1983 hearings issued a report supported by a report produced by the International Property Alliance showed huge losses.

The U.S.A with a view to removing the deadlock at the GATT amended in 1984 section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizing the President to take measures conducive to eradicate "unjustifiable or unreasonable trade practices." to the effect of making intellectual property unambiguously actionable under Section 301. The U.S.A Trade Representative was assigned the task to make an annual review in order to detect priority foreign countries which deny adequate and effective protection to intellectual property rights or which deny fair and equitable market access to U.S traders. The USTR is required to locate such countries on a priority watch list or a watch list followed by retaliation or sanctions in the form of increased duties, import restrictions and tariff exemptions. The issue of intellectual property protection including counterfeit goods was thoroughly discussed during the Uruguay Round trade negotiations continuing from September 1986 to April 1994 which changed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Uruguay Round incorporated a resolution taken on January 28, 1987 under the title 'trade related aspects of intellectual property rights including trade in counterfeit goods". The agreement of World Trade Organization (WTO) was signed on April 1994 by ministers of 125 participating countries at a meeting in Marrakech, Morocco. The TRIPS Agreement was an Annex among a package of 2o agreements; however the phrase "including trade in counterfeit goods" was removed and substituted with a preamble carrying the same purport. The WTO Agreement entered into force on January 1, 1995. The negotiations surrounded the TRIPS Agreement demonstrate that a system of coercive economic retaliation measures could serve enforcement mechanism.
Counterfeiting adverse effects include loss of sales revenue as would diminish market share, it also acts to devaluate a company's brand image, and may negatively encroach on a company's investment in research and development. In some industries such as medicine and spare parts it may pose a serious risk of purchasing poor quality goods. Needless to say, it would do nothing to raise public faith in the probity of the business world if commercial culpable dealings such as that of counterfeiters were to be free from penalty. A report issued by OECD in 1989 has estimated that counterfeiting illegal operations fall within the range of 5 to 7 percent of world trade and have generated about 250 billion in euro. The World Customs Organization report of January 27, 2003 estimated illegal trade at 450 billions in euro. Illegal sale of CDs represented 28% of total sales in 2001.
The World Economic Forum held at Davos on January 2003 supported by government representatives, police authorities and customs departments decided to take tough measures to combat counterfeiting. The Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue has acknowledged counterfeiting and piracy as a priority issue for action between the U.S.A and the EU governments. It has endorsed clamping down measures on infringement of intellectual property rights. OECD member states, industry associations, multinational companies are exerting great efforts to implement new effective initiatives, ideas and programs concerning IP enforcement. A noteworthy happening was the creation of the First Global Congress on combating counterfeiting held in Brussels in May 2004. It was attended by the World Customs Organization (WCO), the Interpol, the International Trademarks Association (INTA), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Global Business Leaders Alliance (GBLAC) a coalition of 15 major multinational corporations. In the said Congress, the question of counterfeiting has been carefully canvassed. The Global Congress urges a public-private partnership for pursuing more concrete actions, undertaking joint studies focusing on the means to avoid barriers and to structure much more effective machinery prone to materialize in a proper enforcement of IP, particularly in hot-spot countries.
It is pertinent to indicate that an efficient global IP protection is a complex issue, as it does not operate to meet the economic interest of each and every government which is obliged to strictly implement the requisite enforcement measures. Global innovative pursuits would probably entail large international profits, but the level of technological development in each country determines the capacity to capture these profits. The economic situation of the less developed countries, lacking manufacturing capacity, may encourage counterfeiters to imitate, to capture as a minimum, a fraction of the international profits resulting from others research pursuits. However, as a matter of fact imitation occurs in middle income, newly industrialized countries (NIC) having the sufficient imitation capacity due to the fact that innovative activities are ever more witnessed. The main reason behind imitation is that the trade-off between innovation and imitation is not very similar for all countries. Imitation offers the opportunity to acquire some profits in the event local innovation is not paying. It should be observed that even in countries where intellectual property has been implemented for a considerable time, legal protection and enforcement still requires great efforts.
There is one final reflection on all this and that is that, the grave situation which encourages counterfeiters and faces companies producing state- of- the- art products is the quality of the counterfeit goods. When the quality of a counterfeit product is higher compared to an old generation product, the consumer is likely to prefer the counterfeit product. The poor consumer would find a substitute and the richer consumer will pay less price. As a foregone conclusion the old generation product would be turned out of the market. In such an instance a counterfeit product would drive prices down.

Related Articles
  My Sales Force Won't Use CRM
  Motivation with consequences
  How To Recapture The Optimism Of Youth
  Taking Adverse Action Requires an Eye on the Clock
  The Role Of Pharmacoepigenomics In Health

Article Tags: ambit, counterfeit goods, deadlock, developing countries, gatt, global harmonization, house of representatives, importation, industrialized countries, infringement of intellectual property, intangible property, intellectual property issues, intellectual property protection, intellectual property rights, international trade, property deals, section 301, trade act of 1974, trade practices, trade representative



Related Forum Posts
Re: Product innovation can discourage counterfeits - It's rather sad that people just have to figure out how they can make money by cheating rather than by honest hard work, whether it's counterfeiting money, or tennis rackets, or whatever. I've always heard the cliche of Rolex watches being easily counterfeited.... for that matter I've never understood anyone paying $1,000 or even $2,000 for a watch when a $10 watch keeps just as good time!
Re: Theft in my Store!!! - Thats awful, i can only imagine how it must feel to know that things are being stolen from you. I think that having security cameras installed wouldnt have any adverse effects on your stores environment- but it could help you figure out who is taking things and that would help you prevent it in the future. Especially if it is an employee- which would be very unfortunate but could save you the hardships in the future... Good luck.
Theft in my Store!!! - Hi everyone, I run a departmental store downtown. I have a staff of about 20-25 people, the workforce is not large. But, I have a big store and from a few days I have got the feeling that there are thefts in my shop. I have got the accounts cleared up and the items checked and there is a clear proof of some theft. I am here to get some real good ideas on how could I prevent all of this without having an adverse effect on my shop environment? Please do help me.
Patent Pending Status & gettin Royalties absent an agree - Hi I am an inventor and I want to know what the consequences are, if any, if a manufacturer sells my product absent a licensing agreement with me. There are hundreds of manufacturers who can convert their manufacturing facilities and easily produce my product. And there are others who can pop up out of nowhere and produce my product as well. Also how long will take to get patent pending status?
Re: Firing your customers - Hi Evan, I believe many of us have encountered such situations where we landed up with customers who were too difficult to deal with. Firing them for bad behaviour! Well I have never dared to do this. The reason is simple - I might sound egoistic, but, I believe that I am better than the rest and as such there is no point in firing at a customer who is having a bad behaviour. being cool does not have any adverse effect but in fact, on a couple of occasions I have got business from such clients. Reason - they felt bad at a later point of time as they realised they were wrong in being bad to me or my organization. Had I reciprocated on similar terms, it definitely would have a. brought bad word of mouth which an entrepreneur cannot afford and b. I would have lost them as clients forever. As you can see at the end of it, you turn out to be the winner because what you need is business and patience pays! Regards,


Share this article with your friends. Fund someone's dream.

Leave a comment below or share on the left and you'll help support entrepreneurs in Africa through our partnership with Kiva. Over $50,000 raised and counting - Please keep sharing! Learn more.

Tweet

Newsletter

Get advice & tips from famous business
owners, new articles by entrepreneur
experts, my latest website updates, &
special sneak peaks at what's to come!

Name:
Email:

Popular Articles

The OLD Way of Advertising, May Not be so OLD

Are You An Accidental Consultant?

How To Brand Your Home Business Online

Suggestions

Email us your ideas on how to make our
website more valuable! Thank you Sharon
from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for
your suggestions to make the newsletter
look like the website and profile younger
entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez.