Trademark infringement and optimal monitoring policy
The paper addresses a trademark infringer who seeks to capitalize on the reputation of a trademark owner, sells an identical product under a trademark which is confusingly similar to that of the owner, charges the same price and competes with him in the same market. We show that the welfare-maximizing monitoring intensity is zero, hence the government is not likely to engage in monitoring infringement. Recognizing this, the trademark owner may consider monitoring the market himself, discovering, however, that this is worth his while only if the penalty for infringement, which he fully collects, is sufficiently high. Given the entry condition, an increase in the penalty may either raise or lower the optimal monitoring intensity. In the former case it will counter-intuitively increase the infringer's expected profit, apparently because a higher penalty will also lead to a raise in price. While monitoring enables the trademark owner to maintain a positive profit level, it reduces social welfare. The government may intervene to eliminate the private incentive for monitoring through taxing the collected penalty.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gene M. Grossman & Carl Shapiro, 1986.
"Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,"
NBER Working Papers
1915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000.
"The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
- BELLEFLAMME, Paul & PICARD, Pierre M., .
"Piracy and competition,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
-1919, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Paul, BELLEFLAMME & Pierre, PICARD, 2005. "Piracy and competition," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2005057, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
- Paul Belleflamme & Pierre M. Picard, 2004. "Piracy and Competition," CESifo Working Paper Series 1350, CESifo Group Munich.
- BELLEFLAMME, Paul & PICARD, Pierre, 2005. "Piracy and competition," CORE Discussion Papers 2005083, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Gary S. Becker, 1968.
"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 76, pages 169.
- Higgins, Richard S & Rubin, Paul H, 1986. "Counterfeit Goods," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 211-30, October.
- Bae, Sang Hoo & Choi, Jay Pil, 2006. "A model of piracy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 303-320, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jebusi:v:62:y::i:2:p:116-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.