The Psychology Behind Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting

Zaichkowsky, Judy

doi:10.4324/9781315820965

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A fourth stream addresses the managerial response to counterfeiting (Chaudhry et al, 2005;Staake et al, 2009;Cesareo and Stöttinger, 2015). Eisend and Schucher-Güler (2006), Zaichkowsky (2006), Lee and Yoo (2009), Staake et al (2009), Cesareo (2016) provided a comprehensive cover of the topic of counterfeiting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do product category and consumers’ motivations profiles matter regarding counterfeiting?

Roux¹,

Thébault²,

Roy³

2019

JPBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This research explores the impact of product category and consumers' motivations profiles on the determinants of consumers' preferences and purchase intentions of counterfeits and genuine, through manipulation of product attributes and purchase situations. Design/Methodology: The research relies on an experimental design involving a questionnaire on a convenience sample with two parts: a trade-off model manipulating three attributes: Product type (genuine vs counterfeit), Price (high vs low), Place of purchase (regular shop, Internet, market) in two product categories and a scale measuring motivations to purchase counterfeits. Ranking and purchase intentions are analyzed using conjoint analysis and Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do product category and consumers’ motivations profiles matter regarding counterfeiting?

Roux¹,

Thébault²,

Roy³

2019

JPBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It's been estimated that up to 50% of private labels (Steenkamp & Geyskens, 2013) as well as newly launched brands (van Horen & Pieters, 2017) in supermarkets copycat national brands disputing not only the imitated brand's financial investments and equity but also other national brands in the same product category (Satomura, Wedel, & Pieters, ). Irrespective of the nature of the imitating brand (private label or upcoming brand), copycat brands tend to wind up in court due to infringement of trademark (Zaichkowsky, ), often outside consumers’ awareness. Consistent with the increasing managerial interest in the topic, academic research on copycat brands has grown significantly (Miceli & Pieters, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Purposely designed to look like leading national brands, copycats indirectly damage the imitated brand by free‐riding on its reputation and quality expectations (Zaichkowsky, ), thus every purchase constitutes a win‐situation for the copycat but a loss‐situation for the imitated brand. Given that consumers are very much aware of copycat strategies and perceive them as unfair and unacceptable (van Horen & Pieters, ), the threat should vary depending on the nature of the brand, as consumers may find a copycat brand more acceptable when it imitates a global brand (=out‐group) than when it imitates a local brand (=in‐group).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The moderating impact of perceived globalness on consumers’ purchase intentions for copycats: The pleasure of hurting global brands

Loebnitz

Grunert

2019

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copycats or "me-too" brands imitate prominent features of market leaders with the intention to benefit from consumers' positive associations of the imitated brand.However, the imitated market leader can be perceived as being local (=in-group) or global (=out-group). Employing social identity theory, Study 1 examined the interaction between copycat strategy and perceived globalness of the brand, showing that consumers have higher purchase intentions for global copycats versus a local counterpart. Study 2 shows that the interacting effect of copycat strategy and perceived globalness is moderated by consumer ethnocentrism. Further, authors demonstrate that a global copycat elicit greater schadenfreude (vs. local brand), which in turn increases consumers' purchase intentions. Subsequent mediation analysis shows that ethnocentric consumers experience schadenfreude upon encountering copycats of global brands, which in turn increases purchase intention, whereas low ethnocentric consumers show higher purchase intentions for local differentiated brands because they deem a copycat strategy as unacceptable. Finally, Study 3 examines whether the results from Studies 1 and 2 continue to hold for theme copycats.

show abstract

“…Our primary prediction is that counterfeiting can engender moral disgust, which can degrade the efficacy of products that are perceived to be fake, and infect the efficacy of genuine products that resemble counterfeits. Specifically, we propose that because people find counterfeiting unethical (e.g., Gino et al., ; Wilcox et al., ; Zaichkowsky, ) and because unethical behaviors can engender moral disgust (e.g., Chapman, Kim, Susskind, & Anderson, ; Moll, Zahn, Oliveira‐Souza, Krueger, & Grafman, ; Rozin, Lowery, & Ebert, ), perceiving a product as a counterfeit can trigger this type of disgust. Similarly to how physical disgust triggers rejection of the offending source, moral disgust can reduce willingness to be proximal to or in physical contact with an item perceived as a counterfeit, interfering with effective product usage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Counterfeits Infect Genuine Products: The Role of Moral Disgust

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that moral disgust toward counterfeiting can degrade both the efficacy of products perceived to be counterfeits and that of genuine products resembling them. Five studies support our propositions and highlight the infectious nature of counterfeiting: Perceiving a product as a counterfeit made disgust more mentally accessible, and led participants to disinfect the item more and reduce how long they remained in physical contact with it (Study 1). Participants who perceived a mouse as a counterfeit, performed less well in a computer game using the mouse and expressed greater moral disgust, which mediated lowered performance (Study 2). Exposure to a supposedly counterfeit fountain pen in an unrelated prior task infected participants' performance using a genuine ballpoint pen resembling the "counterfeit;" individual differences in moral attitudes moderated the effect (Study 3). Exposure to a supposedly counterfeit mouse infected performance with a genuine mouse of the same brand; moral disgust mediated this effect (Study 4). Finally, moral disgust mediated lowered efficacy of a supposed counterfeit and that of a genuine item resembling the "counterfeit" (Study 5).

show abstract

The Psychology Behind Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Do product category and consumers’ motivations profiles matter regarding counterfeiting?

Do product category and consumers’ motivations profiles matter regarding counterfeiting?

The moderating impact of perceived globalness on consumers’ purchase intentions for copycats: The pleasure of hurting global brands

How Counterfeits Infect Genuine Products: The Role of Moral Disgust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About