tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2558515555332310867..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: RETROMARK: A year of trade marks - Part 1: Costs after CartierVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-46384662963911972672018-03-27T11:15:07.918+01:002018-03-27T11:15:07.918+01:00"the fact that many consumers are often too e..."the fact that many consumers are often too embarrassed to notify brands when they have been a victim of intellectual property fraud"<br /><br />or<br /><br />The fact that many consumers know and are more than happy to be buying a product that is an intellectual property infringement (for example a cheap copy of a product that would otherwise be unaffordable) and therefore have no desire to notify the brand. Consumers are not always the innocent victims they are held out to be. <br /><br />There is currently a misleading narrative that IP is there solely to protect the consumer e.g. all fake goods are unsafe, fake goods fund terrorism, fake goods destroy the economy. There needs to be more honesty in discussions about IP enforcement. IP primarily protects the rights holder and that is not a bad thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com