Transcrime Research in Brief - Estimating the counterfeit markets in Europe October 2015
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Transcrime
Research in Brief
October 2015
Estimating the counterfeit
markets in Europe
Authors
Diana Camerini
Serena Favarin
Marco DugatoEstimating the counterfeit markets in Europe
Transcrime Research in Brief
Number 3
October 2015
Authors
Diana Camerini (diana.camerini@unicatt.it)
Serena Favarin (serena.favarin@unicatt.it)
Marco Dugato (marco.dugato@unicatt.it)
This study has been coordinated by Ernesto U. Savona
Transcrime – Joint Research Centre on Transnational Crime
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano – Università degli Studi di Trento
Milan office (headquarters): Largo Gemelli, 1 – 20123 Milano (Italy)
Phone: +39 02 7234 3715 / 3716; Fax: +39 02 7234 3721
www.transcrime.it
@transcrime
www.facebook.com/Transcrime
www.linkedin.com/company/transcrime
2015
Codice ISSN: 2420-8183
Codice ISBN: 978-88-8443-624-5
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author
Suggested Citation:
Camerini, D., Favarin, S. & Dugato M. (2015), Estimating the counterfeit markets in Europe,
Transcrime Research in Brief - N.3/2015, Trento (IT): Transcrime – Università degli Studi di Trento
Credits: Michael W. May
Graphic project: Ilaria Mastro – Transcrime2. Counterfeiting as a
Introduction transnational crime
• Counterfeit markets are transnational.
• Counterfeiting is a global phenomenon Although domestic production is
OC and the counterfeit markets
that threatens the economic stability and increasingly important,6 most of the
1.
sustainable growth of countries. counterfeit goods sold in the EU
International and national law enforcement
Member States originate in countries
agencies have highlighted the link between
• This crime is characterized by the outside Europe.7
organized crime and counterfeiting.8
coexistence of several markets involving
Definition
different products, dynamics and actors. • It is therefore important to track these
Mafia and Camorra in Europe and the
flows and to tackle this activity at global
Americas, and the Triads and Yakuza in
• Increasing the knowledge about the level.
Asia traffic counterfeit products in addition
characteristics and the extent of these
to other traditional activities.9
of
markets is crucial if this crime is to be • Estimates of counterfeit markets should
tackled effectively. enable comparison among countries to
monitor the evolution and the
• In particular, reliable estimates of the international connectedness of this
counterfeiting
size of the counterfeit markets could crime.
improve the efficacy of counter-action by
better orienting policies and
interventions.
• A growing number of researchers,
stakeholders, and public or private Map 1 - The routes of counterfeiting
institutions have been producing a wide
Departure countries
variety of studies and estimates on
counterfeit markets.1 • This study uses the definition of China and Hong Kong are the main
counterfeit products adopted by the departure countries of counterfeit goods
• However, these studies are varied in European Commission. commercialized in the EU. In 2013, 66.1%
scope and sometimes based on unclear of total goods seized and 72.4% of total
methodologies. This prevents • “Goods are counterfeits when they bear seizures show that China is the main
comparisons across time and space.2 ‘without authorization a trade mark which source country (Map 1).10
is identical to a validly registered trade
• In recent decades, Transcrime has mark, or which cannot be distinguished in Greece and Turkey are also important
contributed to the development of its essential aspects from such trade source countries. They rank third in terms
transparent and rigorous methodologies mark” (Council Regulation (EC) of articles seized and number of cases,
for the analysis of illegal activities.3 1383/2003). respectively.11
• Sound methodologies produce better • Counterfeit markets are conventionally Transit countries
estimates and orient future divided between primary markets, where
the fake products are sold to Counterfeit goods flowing into Europe
developments by highlighting shortages
unsuspecting consumers, and secondary from the Far East and South East Asia
in the existing data.
markets, in which the purchasers of transit through Egypt, Hong Kong,
counterfeits goods is fully aware.5 Morocco, Singapore, or the UAE.
• This study presents an update of the
Traffickers often exploit the presence of
approach used by Transcrime to
Free Trade Zones and large transhipment
estimate the size of the various
hubs (Map 1).12
counterfeit markets at EU level.4
Destination countries
• This document starts with a brief review
of what is known about counterfeiting in Among the EU Member States, the United
the EU (i.e. routes, products, consumers Kingdom, Germany and Belgium register
and previous studies). It then proposes the highest numbers of seizures in terms
new estimates of the expenditures for of cases, whereas Italy, Spain and the
ten different counterfeit markets in the United Kingdom register the largest
28 EU Member States using a numbers of articles seized (Map 1).13
demand-size approach. Finally, it
discusses policy and research Legend
implications.
Departure countries
Source: EU – TAXUD (2014) and UNODC (2010)
Main destination countries
Other destination countries
Transit countries3. Products Counterfeit products seized
Figure 1
• Certain products are more at risk of Value out of scale 20,700
counterfeiting because of their specific
characteristics.14
• Consequently, the size of counterfeit
markets may vary according to the
products involved (i.e. some markets are
more important than others) and the
country (i.e. counterfeit markets affect
the economies of countries differently).
• Selecting the types of products to be
considered and the most reliable
sources of information is crucial for
producing sound estimates.
• The most counterfeited products can be
identified according to two different
data sources: seizures and surveys on
consumers.
• Data on seizures show which types of
goods are detected at the European or
national borders (supply).15
• Between 2012 and 2013, the number of
cases of seizures and the number of
articles seized in the EU decreased
respectively by 4% and 10% (Figure 1).16
• The top three categories of articles
seized in the EU are clothing (12.3%),
other goods (11.1%)I and medicines
(10.1%). Sport shoes (17.9%), clothing
(17.3%) and bags, wallets and purses
(13.2%) are the articles most seized in
terms of number of seizures.17
• Surveys on consumers give information
on the products that they are willing to
buy or have already purchased (demand).18 ∆% ∆%
Value out of scale 21,500
2013 2012-2013 2013 2012-2013
• In 2010, fashion wear and accessories
(46% of the total) were the counterfeit Total EU Total EU
items most purchased in good faith in 21 Number of Number of ∆% 2012-2013 ∆% 2012-2013
out of 27 EU Member States (Figure 2).19 seizures articles seized -10% -4%
Perfumes (21%), music (20%) and films
(16%) followed.
• Fake consumer electronics devices are 100 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000
relatively most purchased in Latvia and
Malta, whereas imitations of perfumes,
sports equipment and music are the
most frequently purchased items in
Romania, Slovenia and Spain
respectively.
• Comparable information about
intentional purchases is not available at Number of seizures Number of articles seized
EU level.
|
The category “other goods” includes insecticides, shoe polish, Source: EU – TAXUD (2014)
light bulbs, glue, batteries, air fresheners, washing powder.Have you ever bought a product in good faith,
only to find out later that it was counterfeit?
If yes, what kind of product(s) was it?
Figure 2
(Percentage)
65 - 75
55 - 65
45 - 55
35 - 45
25 - 35
AUSTRIA
15 - 25
5 - 15
0
PHARMACEUTICALS
FILM
SOFTWARE
SPORTS EQUIPMENT
PERFUMES
TOBACCO
MUSIC
TOYS
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
FASHION WEAR AND ACCESSORIES
SPARE PARTS (AUTOMOTIVE)
OTHER
Source: Eurobarometer (2011)4. Consumers
• Estimates of counterfeit markets should Aware consumers Actual and potential consumers • However, the gap between these figures
consider that consumers are likely to is not equal for all the EU MS. The higher
differ in their motivations and • Individuals who intentionally buy the ratio between the two percentages,
counterfeit articles are mostly young • The contextual propensity to buy
characteristics. counterfeits can be evaluated by the lower the amount of unfulfilled
(15-34 years old) males.22 potential demand (figure 3).
considering the percentage of witting
• Buyers of counterfeit products can be consumers regardless of their personal
distinguished between: unwitting • The main driver of the intentional • Romania, Spain, Latvia and Lithuania are
purchase of counterfeit articles is the characteristics and the types of market.
consumers, who purchase fake products the countries with the largest ratio
in good faith (primary markets) and price. The relative majority (27%) of EU between actual and potential
consumers agree that it is acceptable to • They can be distinguished between:
aware consumers, who intentionally consumers, whereas Slovakia, the
purchase counterfeit articles (secondary buy counterfeit products when the Netherlands and Hungary have the
prices of the original goods are too high.23 Actual consumers, who have already
markets). purchased counterfeit articles. lowest ratios.
• The highest rates of tolerance for
Unwitting consumers counterfeit products pertain to citizens Potential consumers, who would be • Various factors can explain this gap:
from South-Eastern Europe and the willing to purchase counterfeit articles
• A survey conducted at EU level revealed Moral: the consumers find the purchase
Baltic States. if specific conditions occur.
that 20% of interviewees had purchased of counterfeits acceptable, but do not
counterfeit products unintentionally.20 want to break the law.
• This is a general profile describing the • The findings of a survey24 at EU level
personal characteristics of the aware show that, in general, where the
• With little gender variation, around 50% Risk: the risks of using counterfeit
consumer (personal propensity). percentage of citizens that actually
of respondents aged between 15 and 39 products exceed the economic benefits.
consume counterfeits is higher, then
years old said that they had unknowingly
• The propensity to buy counterfeits can also the percentage of potential ones is
bought counterfeit goods.21 Economic: the saving on the counterfeit
be also driven by social, cultural and higher.II
purchase is lower than expected.
• The EU MS reporting the largest amount availability factors (contextual propensity)
unwitting consumption are Romania, or by the types of product counterfeited Systemic: the actual supply or the
Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Hungary. (market specific propensity). market conditions do not meet the
demand.
• The main targets of unwitting purchases • These latter are fundamental for
are products with prices lower than understanding the different sizes of
those of genuine ones, and luxury goods. counterfeit markets by countries and
products. Figure 3 – Percentage of actual and potential consumers of counterfeit products
40%
TYPES OF CONSUMERS POTENTIAL ACTUAL
35%
30%
UNWITTING AWARE
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
FEMALE / MALE MALE
0%
15 - 39 15 - 34 CY EL SI MT BE LT LV BG EE PT ES SK HR LU AT NL RO HU PL SE FR IT DK IE UK CZ DE FI
RATIO % 27 24 17 14 24 32 32 29 20 22 35 10 25 25 15 10 37 11 16 23 24 20 20 27 22 30 15 17
PRICE PRICE
Source: Transcrime elaboration on Eurostat (2010) and OHIM (2013)
LUXURY GOOD AVAILABILITY
II
Linear correlation coefficient = 0.925, p≤0.01
Source: Eurobarometer (2011) and OHIM (2013)6. A demand-based
5. Measuring estimate of the EU
counterfeit Using seizures counterfeit markets
or surveys to produce
markets estimates?
• This study uses a demand-side
approach to estimate how much money
EU citizens currently and potentially
are willing to buy (estimate 2)
counterfeit products.
spend on the purchase of different types • These components make it possible to
PROS
of counterfeit products. consider the contextual propensity to
• Counterfeiting is a crime perpetrated on buy counterfeits in each country.
multiple different markets. However, • It provides two types of estimates:
most of the existing studies have either • The results are then multiplied by the
focused on estimates of the counterfeit 1. The actual expenditure propensity to purchase a specific type of
market as a whole, or they have 2. The potential expenditure counterfeit product.V This latter
considered individual markets. adjustment makes it possible to include
Seizures • The first estimate is based on data on the market specific propensity of
• Previous research on counterfeiting has consumers who intentionally purchased consumers.
mostly conducted on qualitative counterfeit articles in the last 12
analyses of case studies and descriptive ■ recorded by official sources months.32
AEij= HCij * Ci * Pj
analyses of impacts, actors, routes, and ■ periodically available at country level
the supply chain.25 • The second estimate focuses on the size PEij= HCij * PCi * Pj
of the potential demand, using data on
• A limited number of studies have Surveys consumers’ attitudes towards
Where:
developed quantitative estimates of the counterfeit products.33
“size” or “magnitude” of the counterfeit AEij = actual expenditure on intentional
markets. ■ information on actual consumption • Both estimates consider the demand of consumption of counterfeit products in country i for
a specific counterfeit market (see market j
■ less biased by LEA activities PEij = potential expenditure on intentional
• However, there is no common definition ■ comparable estimates across countries below). The markets selected are those consumption of counterfeit products in country i for
of which aspects of markets should be most vulnerable to counterfeiting.III market j
considered. Estimates may focus on: HCij = total household consumption in country i of
• The final estimates for each country and market j
Ci = percentage of actual consumers of counterfeit
- Volume or value of the trade in each market are obtained by multiplying products in country i (actual contextual propensity)
counterfeit goods;26 the data on total household PCi = percentage of potential consumers of
- Economic and social impact of this CONS consumptionIV by the share of people counterfeit products in country i (potential contextual
propensity)
crime (losses or costs);27 who have consumed (estimate 1) or who
Pj = propensity to consume counterfeit products
- Turnover of the traffickers;28 related to the type of product j (market specific
- Consumers’ expenditure.29 propensity)
Markets considered
• Furthermore, there is a lack of
agreement on the methodology with Seizures
which to estimate the size of counterfeit
markets. Clothing Footwear Food and non-alcoholic beverages
■ affected by LEA operations and
effectiveness
• Some studies adopt a demand-side
■ influenced by the detectability of the Games, toys and hobbies Information and communication technology
approach, using data on consumer
product
surveys,30 whereas others focus on the
■ the location of the seizures may not Jewellery, clocks, watches
supply of counterfeit products using Recording media Household appliances
be the final destination of the products
data on seizures.31
Perfumes and articles for personal care Pharmaceutical products and medicaments
• Existing studies also differ in terms of
the product categories considered. Surveys
• This study aims at estimating the
potential and actual expenditures of the ■ representativeness of the samples III
In particular, sensitive products are identified on the V
The market specific propensity is calculated by taking
aware consumers (secondary markets) of ■ accuracy and honesty of the responses basis of OHIM (2013), Eurobarometer (2011) and the into account the ratio between the yearly illegal
GTRIC-P index elaborated by the OECD (2008, p. average expenditure on a product and the yearly
ten different markets in 28 EU Member 124). legal average expenditure on the same product by a
States using a demand-side approach. consumer. The data used pertain to a survey
IV
Data on total household consumption are collected conducted in Spain by ANDEMA (Asociación Nacional
through Household Budget Surveys (HBSs) para la Defensa de la Marca, 2013). To the authors’
conducted by Eurostat in 2010. knowledge, this is the estimate of the illegal average
purchases of each consumer by type of product.7. The counterfeit Figure 4 - Total consumption and consumption of counterfeit products in the EU by types of products (%)
markets in Europe 1%
1%
1%
3%
4%
• At EU level, the largest counterfeit • EU consumers privilege the 4%
markets is food and beverage. It is consumption of certain types of fake
estimated at 1.6 billion EUR for actual articles. Indeed, the distribution of the 5%
expenditure and 7.0 for potential total consumption of goods is different
expenditure. Conversely, the smallest from the distribution of the consumption
market is represented by recording of counterfeit products (figure 4).
media (0.2 and 1.0 million EUR if, 6%
respectively, actual and potential • There are several and interrelated Total
expenditure are taken into account) (table 1). reasons for the differences among consumption
consumption distributions. For example:
• Summing all these markets, the total
expenditure by EU citizens on - Products with higher prices have a 60%
counterfeit productsVI is estimated at greater impact on the total expenditure
15%
9.0 billion EUR in terms of consumption, (i.e. household appliances, information
and 40.8 billion EUR in terms of potential and communication technologies).
demand.
- The higher the demand for a product,
the lower the probability that
• This corresponds respectively to 0.07%
consumers can satisfy it through the
and to 0.32% of the EU GDP.
illegal market. Consequently, markets
with everyday consumption are more
• EU citizens who purchase counterfeit 3%
likely to have lower shares of 2%
products spend 528 EUR per capita per
expenditure on counterfeits. 6%
year.VII 18%
- This dynamic also characterises
• In terms of shares of expenditure, food markets with a lower elasticity of
and beverages come first with around demand to prices (i.e. where lower
18%, followed by household appliances prices do not correspond to a higher
(16%), clothing (15%) and information number of products purchased). 16%
and communication technologies (15%).
Consumption
of
15%
Table 1 – Expenditures for the total consumption and the counterfeit markets (million EUR) counterfeits
Actual expenditure Potential expenditure
MARKETS Total consumption
on counterfeits on counterfeits
15%
Food and non-alcoholic
793,319 1,581 6,986
beverages 10%
Clothing 201,457 1,325 5,964
Perfumes and articles for 6%
personal care
78,306 888 4,005 9%
Pharmaceutical products
and medicaments 58,728 853 3,973
Footwear 57,619 580 2,554
Information and Food and non-alcoholic Pharmaceutical products Jewellery, clocks
55,839 1,315 6,235
communication technologies beverages and medicaments and watches
Household appliances 37,679 1,429 6,494
Clothing Footwear Recording media
Jewellery, clocks and watches 15,135 563 2,533
Perfumes and articles Information and Games, toys and hobbies
Recording media 11,906 195 952 for personal care communication technologies
Games, toys and hobbies 10,828 241 1,106
Household appliances
TOTAL 1,320,817 8,967 40,803
VI
Only for the products considered in this study. VII
Under certain market conditions, i.e. if the price of the
original product is too high, if it concerns luxury products, if
the quality of the product does not matter, and if the original
product is not available where they live (see OHIM, 2013, p. 46).8. Counterfeit markets
at country level
Map 2 - Counterfeit markets with the highest actual expenditure
as % of GDP per each EU MS
• In most EU countries (10 out of 28), information and communication
counterfeit food and beverages are the technology (0.03%) markets (figure 5).
largest counterfeit market in terms of
percentage of GDP. Household • In many markets, Cyprus registers the
appliances and information technologies highest percentages of GDP with respect
are the markets most affected by to the other EU countries (clothing FI
counterfeiting in 6 out 28 MS (map 2). (0.05%); household appliances (0.05%);
perfumes and articles for personal care
• The largest counterfeit market in (0.03%); games, toys and hobbies
Luxembourg is jewellery, clocks and (0.01%)).
watches, whereas in Cyprus and Spain it EE
is clothing (map 2). • Counterfeit pharmaceutical products
and medicaments register the highest SE
• Lithuania presents the largest market of percentages of the national GDP in
counterfeit food and beverages as a Bulgaria (0.09%), whereas jewellery, LV
percentage of GDP among all the other clocks and watches do so in Luxembourg
European countries (0.09%). The same (0.02%). IE DK
country also registers the highest values
at EU level for the footwear (0.03%) and • Figure 6 summarises the results for each UK LT
country and each market.
NL
DE PL
BE
Figure 5 - EU MS with the highest actual expenditure on counterfeits as % of GDP by markets
LU
CZ
SK
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 AT
FR RO
HU
LT - BG - RO - LV LT - CY - LV - MT
HR
CY - LT - EL - ES BE - ES - LT - AT SI
IT
BG
LT - CY - LV - RO CY - ES - LT - EL ES
PT
CY - MT - LT - SI CY - EL - LT - BG EL
BG - LT - LV - RO LU - ES - MT - CY
MT
CYFigure 6 - Counterfeit markets per each EU Member States (actual expenditure in million EUR)
Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark
21.9 66.7 31.1 16.8 7.0 23.6 11.7
27.1 59.6 6.1 7.8 10.4 15.5 14.1
15.4 29.3 11.1 8.0 6.5 14.8 7.6
11.7 53.0 32.2 8.3 5.5 14.5 6.3
11.1 22.3 4.2 5.1 3.8 7.3 4.4
42.0 64.2 2.1 3.2 6.3 25.6 27.5
37.2 91.6 10.5 7.4 10.2 30.6 18.0
13.2 21.4 2.0 0.6 2.6 7.3 7.8
6.0 11.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.0 3.0
5.3 12.7 0.5 0.1 1.0 4.0 4.2
Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland
3.3 8.8 236.9 130.7 83.4 10.5 13.7
1.3 6.5 160.8 129.6 78.5 4.3 15.8
1.4 4.7 118.7 76.5 74.2 4.8 10.2
2.0 6.8 50.4 96.3 49.4 12.3 8.1
0.8 1.7 59.3 46.7 33.3 2.7 6.7
3.1 14.9 226.7 191.6 32.7 4.2 16.0
3.0 10.5 208.9 165.6 58.2 7.1 11.0
0.4 2.9 58.8 74.5 10.1 0.7 7.2
0.2 1.1 37.0 32.5 1.6 0.3 2.6
0.2 2.0 38.3 24.1 7.9 0.6 3.2
Italy Lavia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
195.8 10.8 25.4 2.0 1.6 22.2 69.0
156.8 5.1 14.3 3.9 1.3 34.1 35.1
91.6 5.0 9.0 0.6 1.2 20.0 40.7
140.1 10.7 20.6 1.3 1.5 7.4 62.1
74.4 3.4 9.7 1.4 0.7 11.8 21.0
71.9 4.7 9.4 3.4 1.6 48.0 36.0
99.2 4.6 9.0 3.9 2.3 28.2 44.2
46.6 1.3 3.3 6.1 1.0 16.7 9.6
21.8 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 6.6 2.6
19.8 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.1 8.1 5.0
Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
30.5 78.5 5.8 7.5 313.2 29.9 122.3
20.4 19.9 3.1 7.8 313.6 28.5 143.6
16.9 25.8 2.9 4.6 174.4 18.4 93.6
50.0 49.6 3.9 2.8 103.0 14.6 28.6
11.3 22.3 2.4 3.7 144.7 9.8 53.9
15.3 8.0 2.7 6.9 252.5 33.1 160.9
24.2 15.5 3.5 10.5 306.3 45.7 161.7
4.9 3.6 1.2 1.3 165.2 11.8 80.9
2.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 25.4 3.3 33.1
2.4 1.4 0.3 0.8 49.0 5.7 41.9
Information and
Food and non-alcoholic Perfumes and articles Pharmaceutical products communication Household Jewellery, clocks Recording Games, toys
Clothing Footwear
beverages for personal care and medicaments technologies appliances and watches media and hobbiesConclusions
• This study is one of the first attempts to • First, the analysis is restricted to
create a consolidated and comparable certain markets, and it only considers
methodology to estimate the counterfeit the demand-side at retail level.
markets in the EU Member States using
a demand-based approach. • Second, this methodology assumes that
the percentage of consumers who have
• These results provide a new perspective purchased or would be willing to
in the analysis of counterfeit markets. purchase fake articles is constant with
each country.
• They show that the EU Member States
are differently affected by this crime • Third, the market-specific propensity is
and suggest that the counteracting calculated on the basis of a Spanish
strategies should be targeted according survey and then extended to the other
to the specific situation of each country. countries as well.VIII
• Furthermore, this study provides a • Future research should fill these gaps
general overview of counterfeiting at EU by collecting more detailed data
level, thus allowing identification of, and allowing more refined estimates.
comparisons among, regional and
sectorial patterns of this crime. • This will facilitate the detection of
differences in purchasing counterfeits
• Finally, the comparison between the among countries.
actual and potential expenditure
highlights that the counterfeit market • Better information can also be useful
could grow further beyond the actual for effective risk assessments on the
situation in all the EU Member States. most jeopardized product categories
and implement preventive measures.
• This is particularly worrying given the
economic difficulties of several • In addition, targeted awareness
European countries, which could boost campaigns could help consumers
purchases of counterfeits at lower understand the potential harm of
prices. counterfeit products. This especially
concerns products that may be
• However, the methodology used in this dangerous for consumers’ health, such
study has some limitations, largely due as food and beverage, toys, perfumes
to the limited availability of data. and cosmetics.
VIII
To the knowledge of the authors, this was the only
available information with which to determine a
market-specific propensity.15. WCO. 2014. “Illicit Trade Report 2013.” Brussels, Belgium: World Customs Organization. http://www.wcoomd.org/en/me-
Endnotes
dia/newsroom/2014/june/~/media/W-
CO/Public/Global/PDF/Topics/Enforcement%20and%20Compliance/Activities%20and%20Programmes/Illicit%20Trade%2
0Report%202012/ILLICIT%202013%20-%20EN_LR2.ashx.; EU TAXUD. 2014. “Report on EU Customs Enforcement of
Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the EU Border 2013.” Luxembourg: European Commission - Taxation and
Customs Union. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/cus-
toms/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf.
1. OECD. 2009. “Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update.” Paris: Organisation for Economic 16. EU TAXUD. 2014. “Report on EU Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the EU Border 2013.”
Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/44088872.pdf.; Frontier Economics. 2011. “Estimating Luxembourg: European Commission - Taxation and Customs Union. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/re-
the Global Economic and Social Impacts of Counterfeiting and Piracy.” London, UK: International Chamber of Commerce sources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf.
(ICC) “Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy” (BASCAP). http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/-
BASCAP/BASCAP-Research/Economic-impact/Global-Impacts-Study/.; BSA. 2012. “Shadow Market. 2011 BSA Global 17. Ibid
Software Piracy Study.” Washington, DC: Business Software Alliance. http://globalstudy.bsa.org/2011/downloads/-
study_pdf/2011_BSA_Piracy_Study-Standard.pdf.; CENSIS. 2012. “L’impatto Della Contraffazione Sul Sistema-Paese: 18. For a literature review on surveys on consumers see Edelman Berland. 2013. “Intellectual Property Consumer Surveys -
Dimensioni, Caratteristiche E Approfondimenti.” Roma: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico.; ANDEMA. 2013. “La actitud Literature Review.” Edelman Berland.
del consumidor ante las falsificaciones.” Asociación Nacional para la Defensa de la Marca.
19. Eurobarometer. 2011. “Internal Market: Awareness, Perceptions and Impacts.” Special Eurobarometer 363. European
2. Calderoni, Francesco, Serena Favarin, Lorella Garofalo, and Federica Sarno. 2014. “Counterfeiting, Illegal Firearms, Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_363_en.pdf.
Gambling and Waste Management: An Exploratory Estimation of Four Criminal Markets.” Global Crime 15 (1-2): 108–37.
doi:10.1080/17440572.2014.883499. 20. Eurobarometer. 2011. “Internal Market: Awareness, Perceptions and Impacts.” Special Eurobarometer 363. European
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_363_en.pdf.
3. Transcrime. 2013. “Gli investimenti delle mafie.” Linea 1. Roma: Transcrime. http://investimentioc.it/index.htm.;
Calderoni, Francesco. 2014. “Mythical Numbers and the Proceeds of Organised Crime: Estimating Mafia Proceeds in 21. Ibid
Italy.” Global Crime 15 (1-2): 138–63. doi:10.1080/17440572.2014.882778.; Calderoni, Francesco, Serena Favarin, Lorella
Garofalo, and Federica Sarno. 2014. “Counterfeiting, Illegal Firearms, Gambling and Waste Management: An Exploratory 22. OHIM. 2013. “European Citizens and Intellectual Property: Perception, Awareness and Behaviour.” Alicante, Spain: Office
Estimation of Four Criminal Markets.” Global Crime 15 (1-2): 108–37. doi:10.1080/17440572.2014.883499. for Harmonization in the Internal Market.
4. Savona, Ernesto Ugo, and Michele Riccardi, eds. 2015. From Illegal Markets to Legitimate Businesses: The Portfolio of 23. Ibid
Organised Crime in Europe. Trento: Transcrime - Università degli Studi di Trento. http://www.transcrime.it/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2015/04/ocp.pdf. 24. Ibid
5. OECD. 2009. “Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update.” Paris: Organisation for Economic 25. UNICRI. 2007. “Counterfeiting: A Global Spread, a Global Threat.” Turin, Italy: United Nations Interregional Crime and
Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/44088872.pdf. Justice Research Institute. http://www.unicri.it/news/article/0712-3_counterfeiting_crt_foundation.; Transcrime. 2010a.
“Anti Brand Counterfeiting in the EU: Report on Best Practices.” Milan: European Commission. http://www.gacg.org/Con-
6. Europol, and OHIM. 2015. “2015 Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union.” Europol & Office for Harmoni- tent/Upload/Documents/Transcrime_Report%20Best%20Practices_Project%20FAKES.pdf.; Transcrime. 2010b. “Anti
zation in the Internal Market. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/documents/11370/80606/2015+- Brand Counterfeiting in the EU: Report on International and National Existing Standards.” Milan: European Commission.
Situation+Report+on+Counterfeiting+in+the+EU. http://www.gacg.org/Content/Upload/Documents/Transcrime_Report%20Existing%20Standards_Project%20FAKES.pdf.
7. UNODC. 2010. “The Globalization of Crime. A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment.” Vienna, Austria: United 26. Frontier Economics. 2011. “Estimating the Global Economic and Social Impacts of Counterfeiting and Piracy.” London, UK:
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOC- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) “Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy” (BASCAP). http://www.ic-
TA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf.; WCO. 2014. “Illicit Trade Report 2013.” Brussels, Belgium: World Customs Organization. cwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/BASCAP/BASCAP-Research/Economic-impact/Global-Impacts-Study/. OECD.
http://www.wcoomd.org/en/media/newsroom/2014/june/~/media/W- 2009. “Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update.” Paris: Organisation for Economic
CO/Public/Global/PDF/Topics/Enforcement%20and%20Compliance/Activities%20and%20Programmes/Illicit%20Trade%2 Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/44088872.pdf.
0Report%202012/ILLICIT%202013%20-%20EN_LR2.ashx.; EU TAXUD. 2014. “Report on EU Customs Enforcement of
Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the EU Border 2013.” Luxembourg: European Commission - Taxation and Customs 27. Hoorens, Stijn, Priscilla Hunt, Alessandro Malchiodi, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Srikanth Kadiyala, Lila Rabinovich, and
Union. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/cus- Barrie Irving. 2012. “Measuring IPR Infringments in the Internal Market. . OHIM. 2015. “The Economic Cost of IPT
toms/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf. Infringement in the Clothing, Footwear and Accessories Sector.” Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.
https://oami.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/docu-
8. UNODC. 2010. “The Globalization of Crime. A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment.” Vienna, Austria: United ment_library/observatory/resources/research-and-studies/ip_infringement/study2/the_economic_cost_of_IPR_infringe
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOC- ment_in_the_clothing_footwear_and_accessories_sector_en.pdf.
TA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf.; Europol, and OHIM. 2015. “2015 Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European
Union.” Europol & Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/docu- 28. Calderoni, Francesco, Serena Favarin, Lorella Garofalo, and Federica Sarno. 2014. “Counterfeiting, Illegal Firearms,
ments/11370/80606/2015+Situation+Report+on+Counterfeiting+in+the+EU. Gambling and Waste Management: An Exploratory Estimation of Four Criminal Markets.” Global Crime 15 (1-2): 108–37.;
Savona, Ernesto Ugo, and Michele Riccardi, eds. 2015. From Illegal Markets to Legitimate Businesses: The Portfolio of
9. Ibid Organised Crime in Europe. Trento: Transcrime - Università degli Studi di Trento. http://www.transcrime.it/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2015/04/ocp.pdf.
10. EU TAXUD. 2014. “Report on EU Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the EU Border 2013.”
Luxembourg: European Commission - Taxation and Customs Union. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/re- 29. Ledbury research. 2007. “Consumer Survey: Clothing and Footwear Sector.” Alliance Against IP Theft. http://www.wi-
sources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf. po.int/ip-outreach/en/tools/research/details.jsp?id=689.; ANDEMA. 2013. “La actitud del consumidor ante las falsifica-
ciones.” Asociación Nacional para la Defensa de la Marca.
11. Ibid
30. ANDEMA. 2013. “La actitud del consumidor ante las falsificaciones.” Asociación Nacional para la Defensa de la Marca.;
12. Europol, and OHIM. 2015. “2015 Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union.” Europol & Office for Harmo- Savona, Ernesto Ugo, and Michele Riccardi, eds. 2015. From Illegal Markets to Legitimate Businesses: The Portfolio of
nization in the Internal Market. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/documents/11370/80606/2015+- Organised Crime in Europe. Trento: Transcrime - Università degli Studi di Trento. http://www.transcrime.it/wp-con-
Situation+Report+on+Counterfeiting+in+the+EU. tent/uploads/2015/04/ocp.pdf.
13. EU TAXUD. 2014. “Report on EU Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the EU Border 2013.” 31. OECD. 2009. “Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update.” Paris: Organisation for Economic
Luxembourg: European Commission - Taxation and Customs Union. http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/re- Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/44088872.pdf.
sources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf.
32. OHIM. 2013. “European Citizens and Intellectual Property: Perception, Awareness and Behaviour.” Alicante, Spain: Office
14. OECD. 2009. “Magnitude of Counterfeiting and Piracy of Tangible Products: An Update.” Paris: Organisation for Econom- for Harmonization in the Internal Market.
ic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/44088872.pdf.
33. IbidYou can also read
