Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fashion Firms and Counterfeiting: Causes and Actions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Italy in a European Context

  • 279 Accesses

Abstract

The counterfeiting phenomenon, i.e., all those instances when a violation of intellectual property rights (IPRs), either trademarks, copyrights or patents occurs, has reached truly remarkable dimensions. The 2011 BASCAP report (ICC, 2011)1 indicated that by 2015 the value of counterfeiting would reach $1.7 trillion dollars globally, inclusive of internationally traded, internally produced and consumed counterfeits as well as digitally pirated products. As Loredana Gulino, General Director for the fight against Counterfeiting of the Italian Patent and Trademark Office argues: “There is no way to fully contrast the counterfeiting phenomenon if it isn’t deeply understood, both quantitatively and qualitatively.” Europe is very much affected by the phenomenon, since it is a privileged destination market for counterfeits. As a European Commission Report (2014)2 highlights, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and France are the European countries most hit by the phenomenon in terms of numbers of cases and number of articles intercepted. The fake products crossing Europe are coming mainly from China (that alone accounts for 66.12 percent of the total), Hong Kong, Greece, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. In addition, in 2013 the EU customs agencies opened almost 87,000 cases for a total of almost 36 million illicit goods whose domestic retail value (i.e., the price at which they would have been sold on the national market if they had been genuine) was worth almost 768 million euros. The most affected industries (in terms of lost equivalent domestic retail value) were the fashion and luxury goods industries that between accessories (watches, sunglasses, bags, wallet, purses) and clothing comprised 53.05 percent of the total (Figure 5.1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amine Lyn S. and Peter Magnusson (2007), “Cost-benefit models of stakeholders in the global counterfeiting industry and marketing response strategies,” Multinational Business Review, 15(2), pp. 63–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang Swee H., Peng S. Cheng, Elison A. Lim and Siok K. Tambyah (2001), “Spot the difference: consumer responses towards counterfeits,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3), pp. 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett Jonathan M. (2005), “Shopping for Gucci on Canal Street: reflections on status consumption, intellectual property, and the incentive thesis,” Virginia Law Review, pp. 1381–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fich Raquel and Tamilia Mavlanova (2010), “Counterfeit products on the internet: the role of seller-level and product-level information,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), pp. 79–104. doi: 10.2753/jec1086–4415150203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman Barry (2008), “Strategies to detect and reduce counterfeiting activity,” Business Horizons, 51(3), pp. 191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2008.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch Peter H., Ronald F. Bush and Leland Campbell (1993), “Consumer ‘accomplices’ in product counterfeiting: a demand side investigation,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), pp. 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun Virginia and Vittoria Clarke (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush Ronald F., Peter H. Bloch and Scott Dawson (1989), “Remedies for product counterfeiting,” Business Horizons, 32(1), pp. 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell Ramon and Andres Hervas-Drane (2010), “Competing against online sharing,” Management Decision, 48(8), 1247–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesareo Ludovica and Alberto Pastore (2014a), “Consumers’ attitude and behavior towards online music piracy and subscription-based services,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), pp. 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesareo Ludovica and Alberto Pastore (2014b), “Acting on luxury counterfeiting,” in Benjamin Berghaus, Stewen Guenter-Mueller and Sven Reinecke (eds), The Management of Luxury. A Practitioner’s Handbook. USA: Kogan Page, pp. 341–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesareo Ludovica and Barbara Stöttinger (2015), “United we stand, divided we fall — how firms can engage their customers in the fight against counterfeits,” Business Horizons, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Peggy, Victor Cordell and Alan Zimmerman (2005), “Modelling anticounterfeiting strategies in response to protecting intellectual property rights in a global environment,” The Marketing Review, 5(1), pp. 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Peggy (2012), “Curbing consumer complicity for counterfeits in a digital environment,” Journal of Business and Technology Literature, 7(23), pp. 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Peggy, Sohail Chaudhry, Stephen A. Stumpf and Hassi Sudler (2011), “Piracy in cyber space: consumer complicity, pirates and enterprise enforcement,” Enterprise Information Systems, 5(2), pp. 255–271. doi: 10.1080/17517575.2010.524942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Peggy E. and Stephen A. Stumpf (2010), “Consumer complicity with counterfeits: fight or flight-addressing the intellectual property issues in international trade,” Global Trade and Customs Journal, 5(9), p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry Peggy E. and Michael G. Walsh (1996), “An assessment of the impact of counterfeiting in international markets: the piracy paradox persists,” The Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(3), pp. 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung Wah-Leung and Gerard Prendergast (2006), “Exploring the materialism and conformity motivations of chinese pirated product buyers,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 18(3), pp. 7–31. doi: 10.1300/J046v18n03_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commuri Suraj (2009), “The impact of counterfeiting on genuine-item consumers’ brand relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 73(3), pp. 86–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper Steven and Gail M. Eckstein (2008), “Eight ways to minimize the risk of counterfeiting,” Intellectual, Property and Technology Law Journal, 20, pp. 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin Jiuliet and Anselm Strauss (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordell Victor V., Nittaya Wongtada and Robert L. Kieschnick Jr. (1996), “Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants,” Journal of Business Research, 35(1), pp. 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castro Julio O., David B. Balkin and Dean A. Shepherd (2008), “Can entrepreneurial firms benefit from product piracy?” Journal of Business Venturing, 23(1), pp. 75–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielli Veronica, Silvia Grappi and Ilaria Baghi (2012), “Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?” Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), pp. 567–580. doi: 10.1057/bm.2012.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gistri Giacomo, Silvia Romani, Stefano Pace, Veronica Gabrielli and Silvia Grappi (2009), “Consumption practices of counterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context,” Journal of Brand Management, 16(5–6), pp. 364–374. doi: 10.1057/bm.2008.44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green Robert T. and Tasman Smith (2002), “Countering brand counterfeiters,” Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), pp. 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman Gene M. and Carl Shapiro (1988), “Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey Michael (1988), “A new way to combat product counterfeiting,” Business Horizons, 31(4), pp. 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey Michael G. and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (1985), “International counterfeiters-marketing success without the cost and the risk,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 20(3), pp. 37–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung Chen (2003), “The business of product counterfeiting in China and the post-WTO membership environment,” Asia Pacific Business Review, 10(1), pp. 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs Laurence, A. Coskum Samli and Tom Jedlik (2001), “The nightmare of international product piracy: exploring defensive strategies,” Industrial Marketing Management, 30(6), pp. 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaikati Jack G. and Raymond LaGarce (1980), “Beware of international brand piracy,” Harvard Business Review, 58(2), p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupp Marcus, Angela Beckenbauer and Oliver Gassmann (2009), “How managers protect intellectual property rights in China using de facto strategies,” Rand Management, 39(2), pp. 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupp Marcus, Angela Beckenbauer and Oliver Gassmann (2010), “Enforcing intellectual property rights in weak appropriability regimes,” Management International Review, 50(1), pp. 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King Nigel and Christine Horrocks (2010), Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff Klauss (2012), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwong Kenneth, Oliver H. Yau, Jenny Lee, Leo Yenny Sin and Alan Tse (2003), “The effects of attitudinal and demographic factors on intention to buy pirated CDs: the case of Chinese consumers,” Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), pp. 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Ling (2013), “Technology designed to combat fakes in the global supply chain,” Business Horizons, 56(2), pp. 167–177. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2012.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao Chun-Hsiung and I-Yuh. Hsieh (2013), “Determinants of consumer’s willingness to purchase gray-market smartphones,” Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), pp. 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz Stanley J. (2005), “Economists’ topsy-turvy view of piracy,” Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), pp. 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matos Celso Augusto, Cristiana T. Ituassu and Carlos Alberto Rossi (2007), “Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(1), pp. 36–47. doi: 10.1108/07363760710720975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nia Arghavan and Judith L. Zaichkowsky (2000), “Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands?” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), pp. 485–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nill Arghavan and Clifford J. Shultz II (1996), “The scourge of global counterfeiting,” Business Horizons, 39(6), pp. 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen Janeen E. and Kent L. Granzin (1992), “Gaining retailers assistance in fighting counterfeiting-conceptualization and empirical-test of a helping model,” Journal of Retailing, 68(1), pp. 90–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore Alberto and Ludovica Cesareo (2014), “No al falso! Un’indagine esplorativa sulle strategie anti-contraffazione delle fashion firms,” Mercati e Competitività, 2, pp. 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penz Elfriede, Bodo Schlegelmilch and Barbara Stöttinger (2008), “Voluntary purchase of counterfeit products: empirical evidence from four countries,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(1), pp. 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penz Elfriede and Bodo Stottinger (2005), “Forget the ‘real’ thing-take the copy! An explanatory model for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products,” Advances in Consumer Research, 32, pp. 568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phau Ian and Min Teah (2009), “Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), pp. 15–27. doi: 10.1108/07363760910927019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poddar Amit, Jeff Foreman, Syagnik Banerjee and Pam Scholder Ellen (2012), “Exploring the Robin Hood effect: moral profiteering motives for purchasing counterfeit products,” Journal of Business Research, 65(10), pp. 1500–1506. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romani Silvia, Giacomo Gistri and Stefano Pace (2012), “When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands,” Marketing Letters, 23(3), pp. 807–824. doi: 10.1007/s11002–012–9190–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shultz II Clifford J. and Bill Saporito (1996), Protecting intellectual property: strategies and recommendations to deter counterfeiting and brand piracy in global markets,” The Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(1), pp. 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simone Joseph T. (1999), “Countering counterfeiters,” China Business Review, 26, pp. 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson Lisa (2006), “Watchdogs on the internet-protecting consumers against online fraud,” Advances in Consumer Research, 33, pp. 303–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonmez Mahmut and Deli Yang (2005), “Manchester United versus China: a counterfeiting and trademark match,” Managing Leisure, 10(1), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13606710500086611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonmez Mahmut, Deli Yang and Gerald Fryxell (2013), “Interactive role of consumer discrimination and branding against counterfeiting: a study of multinational managers’ perception of global brands in China,” Journal of Business Ethics, 115(1), pp. 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle Susan (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research,” Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 491–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss Anselm and Juliet M. Corbin (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf Stephen A. and Peggy Chaudhry (2010), “Country matters: executives weigh in on the causes and counter measures of counterfeit trade,” Business Horizons, 53(3), pp. 305–314. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2010.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf Stephen A., Peggy Chaudhry and Leeann Perretta (2011), “Fake: can business stanch the flow of counterfeit products?” Journal of Business Strategy, 32(2), pp. 4–12. doi: 10.1108/02756661111109725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tom Gail, Barbara Garibaldi, Yvette Zeng and Julie Pilcher (1998), “Consumer demand for counterfeit goods,” Psychology and Marketing, 15(5), pp. 405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcock Anne E. and Kathryn A. Boys (2014), “Reduce product counterfeiting: an integrated approach,” Business Horizons, 57(2), pp. 279–288. doi: 10.1016/j. bushor.2013.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox Ketih, Hyeong Kim and Shankar Sen (2009), “Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), pp. 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke Ricky and Judith L. Zaichkowsky (1999), “Brand imitation and its effects on innovation, competition, and brand equity,” Business Horizons, 42(6), pp. 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Deli and Gerald E. Fryxell (2009), “Brand positioning and anti-counterfeiting effectiveness,” Management International Review, 49(6), pp. 759–779. doi: 10.1007/s11575–009–0019–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Deli, Gerald E. Fryxell and Agnes K. Y. Sie (2008), “Anti-piracy effectiveness and managerial confidence: insights from multinationals in China,” Journal of World Business, 43(3), pp. 321–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2007.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Deli, Mahmut Sonmez and Derek Bosworth (2004), “Intellectual property abuses: how should multinationals respond?” Long Range Planning, 37(5), pp. 459–475. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2004.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanow Dvora and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (2013), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. ME Sharpe: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo Boonghee and Seung-Hee Lee (2012), “Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with genuine fashion luxury brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each,” Journal of Business Research, 65(10), pp. 1507–1515. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Jie, L. Jeff Hong and Rachel Q. Zhang (2012), “Fighting strategies in a market with counterfeits,” Annals of Operations Research, 192(1), pp. 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Alberto Pastore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ludovica Cesareo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome, Italy

    Donatella Strangio (Associate Professor) & Giuseppe Sancetta (Associate Professor) (Associate Professor) &  (Associate Professor)

Copyright information

© 2015 Alberto Pastore and Ludovica Cesareo

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pastore, A., Cesareo, L. (2015). Fashion Firms and Counterfeiting: Causes and Actions. In: Strangio, D., Sancetta, G. (eds) Italy in a European Context. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56077-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation