Appropriating signs and meaning: the elusive economics of trademark

Ramello, Giovanni B.; Silva, Francesco

doi:10.1093/icc/dtl027

Cited by 79 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The capacity of a mark to be distinguishable from others creates meaning (Beebe, 2004;Verganti, 2008). Trademarks protect also famous brands nowadays which differentiate products on symbolic or aesthetic attributes (Dinwoodie, 1999;Ramello and Silva, 2006). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The socioeconomic product meaning seems also important for the valuation of consumers and industrial clients (Baudrillard, 1970;Lancaster, 1971;Ramello and Silva, 2006;Verganti, 2008).…”

Section: Differential Distinctivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The differential distinctiveness of famous marks distinguishes it from other marks. This distinction creates the cognitive meaning of the sign which customers might value (Ramello and Silva, 2006;Verganti, 2008). Hence, firms that use trademark protection should perceive their competitive environment as being less characterized by easy substitutability of their products with rival ones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do Trademarks Diminish the Substitutability of Products in Innovative Knowledge-Intensive Services?

Crass

Schwiebacher²

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Non-technical summaryTrademarks are treated negligent in the scholarly innovation discourse. In contrast to other intellectual property rights, trademarks are not intended traditionally to protect immediately valuable information. Trademarks protect distinctive commercial signs which stand for something else.Trademark protection encompasses two dimensions: signifier protection and dilution protection. The protection of distinctive signifiers facilitates customers to identify product source. Identifiable producers may compete on delivering reliably satisfying products.Traditional trademark law protects customer. In contrast, anti-dilution regulation protects the capacity of famous mark to identify and distinguish. Both dimensions of trademark protection might differentiate the signed products; either on quality characteristics or on product meaning.Diminishing product substitutability should foster product innovation incentives. Trademarks are therefore supposed to supplement the appropriation of innovation rents. This should be particularly the case for knowledge-intensive services in which other intellectual property rights are considered as little effective due to the intangible and interactive service production.Trademarks are often supposed to reduce substitutability and imitability of product innovations. Using German CIS data for 2010, we provide empirical evidence that trademarking firms assess easy product substitutability as less characteristic for their competitive environment. This correlation between the ease of product substitutability and trademark protection is present for product innovators, for firms in knowledge-intensive services and for firms which consider trademarks as important intellectual property rights.The correlation does not appear to reflect superior functional product characteristics from the application of new technological knowledge. This suggests trademarks as important complementary asset for the commercialization of innovative products in knowledgeintensive services. Das Wichtigste in Kürze AbstractTrademarks are often supposed to reduce substitutability and imitability of product innovations.Using data of the German innovation survey, we provide empirical evidence that trademarking firms in manufacturing and services assess easy product substitutability as less characteristic for their competitive environment. This is particularly the case for service firms which are knowledge-intensive, product innovators and which consider...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The socioeconomic product meaning seems also important for the valuation of consumers and industrial clients (Baudrillard, 1970;Lancaster, 1971;Ramello and Silva, 2006;Verganti, 2008).…”

Section: Differential Distinctivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Trademarks Diminish the Substitutability of Products in Innovative Knowledge-Intensive Services?

Crass

Schwiebacher²

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there have been some studies on the complementary use of different forms of IP protection, these have generally involved sectors other than universities. Moreover, most studies on alternative IP protection mechanisms focus only on proprietary IP, looking at the role of trademarks, design registrations, copyright (Graham and Somaya, 2006;Ramello and Silva, 2006) and neglecting non-proprietary forms of IP 1 . Only a few case studies have aimed at uncovering how software firms use both open source and patents as part of their commercial strategies (Campbell-Kelly and Garcia-Swartz, 2008).…”

Section: Intellectual Property Management In Universities: Issues Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies

Andersen

Rossi

2011

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, much emphasis has been placed in the policy discourse on the patenting of academic research outcomes. However, universities produce a wide variety of IP, not all of which is suitable to be patented, or which universities may choose not to patent. The present article, building upon an original survey of 46 universities (about 27% of total) in the United Kingdom, investigates universities' knowledge transfer processes through the exchange of a variety of forms of IP: patents, copyright, open source and non-patented innovations. The analysis concerns: (i) the extent to which universities exchange these forms of IP; (ii) whether they are used in a complementary or substitute way; and how relatively (iii) strategic effective and (iv) market efficient they are, in allowing universities to reach certain objectives (relating to knowledge transfer, competitive positioning, innovation and financial gain). We find that most universities perceive a variety of types of IP to be effective, usually in order to reach different strategic objectives. Certain forms of IP are use more than others for particular purposes, and no IP exchanges in the marketplace are exempt from institutional problems. Our results challenge the Bayh-Dole Act (now adopted in many OECD countries and elsewhere); i.e. whether patents and patent markets are the best tool for knowledge dissemination from research base into use, and other benefits, and whether instead it would be more appropriate to encourage universities to a variety of IP.

show abstract

“…the fact that trademark emerged in very distinct cultural and legal settings -such as in ancient Greece, in the roman empire, and in ancient China -makes it a good candidate for discussing the comparative method (Greenberg, 1951;diamond, 1983;ramello, 2013). such an analysis might even initially suggest that the repeated emergence of trademark in different societies and legal systems 'can best be explained on the hypothesis that the law is trying to promote economic efficiency' (Landes and posner, 1987, p. 265).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%