Trademarks as an Indicator of Innovation
and Industrial Change
Sandro Mendonça
ISCTE University and Dinâmia
Dept. of Economics
Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026
Lisbon, Portugal
Tiago Santos Pereira
CES - Centro de Estudos Sociais
Universidade de Coimbra
Colégio de S. Jerónimo
Apartado 3087, 3001-401
Coimbra, Portugal
tsp@ces.uc.pt
Manuel Mira Godinho
ISEG/UTL and CISEP
Rua Miguel Lupi 20, 1200 - 725
Lisboa, Portugal
A conference in honour of Keith Pavitt 'What Do We Know About Innovation?'
SPRU/University of Sussex, 13-15th November 2003
Abstract: As innovation becomes an ever more central issue for the development of human
societies and private firms so the need for improved assessments of innovative performance
grows more urgent. In order to reflect the innovation endeavour of countries and companies
several internationally comparable indicators have been imagined and developed since the
1950s. This paper suggests that trademarks can yield reliable results and proposes
methodological steps to make this a useful indicator for capturing and monitoring relevant
aspects of innovation phenomena. We argue that trademarks emerge as complementary
resource in the portfolio of empirical tools of innovation studies, which is still centred on
inputs rather outputs. Our empirical exploration of the indicator is based on a study of
Community Trade Marks and national trademarks of Portuguese firms. Quantitative as well as
quantitative data, including survey information from a representative sample of Portuguese
manufacturing and service firms, are used to identify the advantages and the problems this
research tool.
Keywords: trademarks; IPRs; innovation; industrial dynamics
NOTE: Unrevised first draft. Please do not quote without permission. This is a
preliminary long version of the paper. The conceptual framework and the data
analysis will be consolidated soon as we are expecting to complete our database.
Trademarks as an Indicator of Innovation and Industrial Change1
1. Introduction
The business of branding products and services has been part of ordinary economic
life for a long time. Trademarks are the outcome of establishing recognizable
designations and symbols for material goods, services as well as firms. They are a
crucial part of the innovation and commercial process, helping to differentiate the
quality and content of products and services in the market place. These characteristics
make trademarks a potential new indicator of product innovation and sectoral change.
Recent advances in the institutions of international filing and registration of marks
and the increasing availability of digital databases have increased the potential use of
trademark statistics as a new source of information for industrial and innovation
studies.
Trademarks are of interest for social sciences for at least three reasons: they confer an
exclusive right of using a brand helping companies to appropriate the returns of
investing in new products or improve existing ones; they are an important aspect of
contemporary culture world-wide; and they are a source of qualitative and
quantitative information on socio-economic activity. This paper focuses on the third
of these characteristics. It assesses the possibilities and problems of using trademark
data when analysing the introduction of new or improved goods and services in
competitive markets. Along with a methodological reflection, the paper offers a
concrete empirical application of the indicator to EU-15 data and provides an in-depth
study of a intermediate European economy, Portugal, for which we have national
trademark data for the period after 1980, survey data from 724 firms collected during
2003 and information obtained from thematic workshops held with entrepreneurs,
managers and consultants.
We argue that trademark-based indicators provide a partial measure of the innovative
output of profit-oriented organisations. In its most simple formulation innovation can
be understood as the commercialisation of new idea, product or a production process.
As an Intellectual Property Right (IPR) that is designed to identify certain goods or
services as those provided by a person or a firm helping customers to purchase
something if they recognise its nature and quality meets their needs. The filling of
new trademarks by economic actors reveals the introduction of new offerings aimed at
persuading potential buyers that the range of their problems were not solved by the
supply of solutions available in the market. In this way, given that companies have to
pay fees to register and renew national and international offices, the compromise to
1
No order of seniority implied. The authors are involved in a long-term process of collaboration that
keeps theirs names rotating. This research started in 2001 in the context of a project commissioned by
Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial (INPI) on the use of industrial property rights by
Portuguese individuals, firms and other organizations. Research is now being completed. The authors
acknowledge INPI for permission to use the data generated and organized in the project. One way or
another the three of us were influenced by Keith Pavitt’s sharp and provocative views as a Professor, a
colleague and friend. It is clear in our mind that the current work would not have been the same without
the experience of having known him. Any faults in this paper are entirely our responsibility.
2
register a new brand or logo reveals an economic decision and an entrepreneurial
initiative that are worth investigating. Given the growing demand from governments,
firms and universities for more reliable information on innovation there is a case to
test trademarks has a complementary indicator to the more traditional measures of
technological activity such as R&D and patents. Furthermore, trademarks have the
additional advantage in relation to patents that they can capture changes in service
activities.
Trademarks show promise in analysing (1) rates and directions of product innovations
in different industrial sectors, (2) international patterns of sectoral specialisation, (3)
links between technological activity and marketing advantages; (4) evolution of
economic organisations and structures, not only in terms of entry and exit of firms,
but also in terms of firm growth, differentiation, and diversification. Evidence from
the Portuguese case suggests that the trademark filling largely behaves has expected
in tracking the innovative performance of firms, industries and countries over time.
However, simple counts of trademarks at an intellectual property office are affected
by various sources of bias, such as difficulties in data consolidation (e.g. one brand
can be protected simultaneously by a combination of words, symbols and 3D design)
and weaknesses in international comparability (given different target markets for local
firms). All of these issues cannot be explored or solved in this contribution. The full
assessment of trademarks as indicators of innovative activity and industrial
competitiveness requires further classificatory, survey and econometric research, as
well as in-depth case studies.
The paper is organised as follows: the first section discusses what is trademark in an
IPR and managerial perspectives; the second approaches the conceptual and analytical
issues that arise when we consider trademark statistics as an innovation indicator; the
this is followed by a presentation of the key patterns found on Community Trade
Marks for 15 countries of the EU and a detailed studied of the Portuguese case; the
fifth critically reviews the findings and points out avenues for further research; the
final section concludes.
2. Brands and logos in business life
People show a tendency to label other beings and things surrounding them. It is
thought that the first marks served to indicate the legitimate proprietor of livestock in
Neolithic times 7,000 years ago.2 Later on marks evolved to point the author of one
object and setting down her obligation in assuring the quality of the product. The first
documented example of the economic use of trademarks is found in Roman Empire.
Roman bricks had the stamp of the manufacturer, the date and the place of production.
During the Middle Ages corporations of craftsmen started to identify their
workmanship with a mark. In the absence of a modern means of advertising the
reputation of trade guilds was carried through marks. By the dawn of the industrial era
explicit trademark laws were enacted in France (1857), UK (1862) and the US (1870).
In this field, as well as in others, framing institutions co-evolved with the actors’
2
This information is drawn a website maintained by the Library of the University of Texas at Austin
which compiled and synthesizing information on trademark history from impressively wide and diverse
collection of previous works on the topic:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/engin/trademark/timeline/tmindex.html
3
behaviours and goals. This section brings in the key institutional features of
trademarks as a part of IPR system and examines the economic rationale and the
historical practise of its use by business firms.3
The IPR institution
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) a trademark is
defined as “distinctive sign used to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise
from those of another” (WIPO, 2003). The double objectives of protection and
dissemination built into this definition are practically indistinguishable. Like patents a
trademark provides legal protection to the owner by granting the exclusive right to use
it to identify goods or services, or to lice its use to another it in return for payment.
Rights are obtained at the national level but, unlike patents and copyrights, once
registered can be renewed indefinitely in time on payment of additional fees. The
common expectation in trademark regimes is that a registered mark is used; an unused
trademark is implicitly regarded as a barrier to economic initiative and can be
requested for by other company after a grace period. As stated by Doern (1998, p. 72),
who carried out over 70 interviews with officials of seven agencies, trademarks
constitute the second highest volume of revenue after that generated by patents.
As a creation of the mind, a trademark does not reveal technological inventiveness but
rather marketing inventiveness. Patents are granted to inventions on the basis of nonobviousness, inventiveness in the face of prior art and that deemed capable of
industrial application. Commercial signs may also be denied registration but only if
judged deceptive to consumers (a misleading description of the character or quality of
the goods or services), contrary to public morality or reserved for use by the state or
other public organisations. A trademark might also be refused if another company
opposes it on the grounds of confusability.
Today, trademarks may consist of one or a combination of words, slogans, letters, and
numerals, they may also be drawings, symbols, three-dimensional signs such as the
shape and packaging of goods, audible signs such as musical or vocal sounds, or
fragrances distinguishing and colours. Therefore, they might seem like a lower order
of intellectual creation. Notwithstanding, trademarks constitute a crucial part of
innovation and commercial processes helping to differentiate the nature and quality of
products (Doern, 1998, p. 69).
Trademarks are an IPR issued by an authorised national government agency following
an examination process that is dependent on instituted criteria and a mix of given
human and technical resources. Once an application has been filled, examiners search
available databases to detect any other marks in use that can come into conflict with
the applicant’s. A successfully registered trademark is recognisable by having one of
these two symbols attached: “‚” or “‰”. The lag between the filling and formal
registration is much shorter than for patents. For instance, while it takes up to a year
to register a Community Trade Mark (CTM) for mark for which there is no grounds
of refusal, it can take over five years to obtain a patent from the European Patent
Office.
3
For a history accounts of trademark history see Diamond (1983) and Wilkins (1992).
4
The first international trademark agreements was reached at the Paris Convention of
1883 whereby countries involved in this convention agreed to provide the same
protections regarding marks to foreign applicants as those provides to nationals. In
this context, WIPO emerged as a coordinating institution promoting the development
of IPR laws and allowing the international registration of trademarks. This role flows
from the 1891 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of
Trademarks that opened up the scope for protection of marks beyond their market of
origin. Another important international development was the establishment of the
Community Trade Mark (CTM) in Europe, which came into being with the
establishment of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in 1994,
a EU institution.
The sources for trademark information have to be found elsewhere than OECD and
the Offices of Science & Technology. Amongst the national sources, the Patent and
Trademark Offices are the public agencies traditionally entrusted with registering and
keeping the records of trademarks although not in a shape of databases easily usable
for statistical treatment. The major public international agencies responsible for
trademarks are WIPO and OHIM, which publishes monthly and annual surveys of
trademark activity, broken down by country of applicant, year of filling and
registration, trademark class of goods and services and trademark type (word mark,
figurative mark, three-dimensional mark, etc) since 1996. Finally, amongst private
sources there are an increasing variety of firms compiling and selling databases on
trademarks.
Brands and business strategy
Brands are commercial signatures that firms create, maintain, protect and reinforce for
a number of different marketing objectives. Brand names have multiple origins. Some
are linked to the names of the company founders (Ford, Nestlé), others show a
connection to a particular line of business (Microsoft, Airbus), other still are pure
inventions (Kodak, Xerox), etc. It is especially since the late XIX century that with the
rise of consumer product industries oriented toward mass markets in western societies
that brands become genuine cultural references. Brands such as Coca-cola,
Campbell’s Soup or McDonalds are like (or disliked) by many (or few) but surely
they mean something to people. Many brands became synonym in many languages of
iconic innovations of the XXI century (Hoover, Gillette, Black & Decker). Many
others established themselves as true national symbols (GM, Ferrari, Nokia) or even a
representation of transitional partnerships (Airbus).
For better or worse brands make us company, and their influence on our lives is not
bound to diminish in the near future. Judging from newspaper interviews to CEO’s
and popular business literature, branding is becoming a central concern in product
strategy. Evidence from everyday life tells us that hardly anything goes unbranded.
Even fruits are branded – Chiquita bananas. So, where does all that interest in brands
come from? Sure that brands are obviously of interest to buyers, but in the what ways
such awareness and loyalty commanded by brands translate into a competitive asset
are completely clear.
The rationale and actual influence of trademarks is a relatively neglect aspect in the
development of modern corporations (Wilkins, 1992). For one, economics has
5
notoriously little to say about the activity of branding. From the point of view of
economists prices and quantities are still the most important economic variables.
Products and the complex set of decisions concerning their attributes, such as quality,
features, reputation, support services, and so forth, are still rather scarce in economic
theory no to mention applied research (Trajtenberg, 1990, p. 8). Standard industrial
organisation textbooks tend to cluster issues such as product differentiation and
advertising in the same chapter and focus on the relationship between market structure
and the advertising to sales ratio. Brand decisions are implicitly considered part of
advertisement expenditures. Luís Cabral, who is editor of the Journal of Industrial
Economics and author of a popular textbook on the field (Cabral, 2000), goes on to
make an interesting mea culpa on this subject. Under the heading “Price and non price
strategies” of a teaching note available in the companion site his book, he states that:
“(a)dvertising is not one of the core topics of IO ... this chapter may therefore be
omitted from a course directed primarily at economics majors”, and he goes on to
admit that “(n)ot much economics research has been done on this topic. As a
consequence, most of the points presented are rather tentative: more questions are
raised than answered.”
The only explicit paper on the “economics of trademarks” we were able to detect (an
interesting but rather under-cited paper published in a non-technical journal) gives us
the usual cost and benefit perspective (Economides, 1987). The author points out that
the key reason why brands are indispensable for the efficient provision of products is
that they are a device which facilitates consumer’s choice in the wide rage of variety
and quality combinations available in a modern economy. Nevertheless, the monopoly
power embedded in that IPR is bound to cause inefficiencies and allocative
distortions. Part of such anticompetitive effects consists of barriers to entry to new
competitors which are noted to be very hard to grasp using the traditional analytical
framework of mainstream economics.
In economic terms, a brand should be protected by a trademark when its expected
value (probability of being accepted times the revenue associated with the brand)
exceeds the cost of applying for it. In the management literature the question “to
brand or not to brand” is treated by marketing research. In terms of the classic
marketing framework, brands are working on the Product variable of their marketing
mix. This the conventional view of the set of tools that a firm blends to influence the
demand for its product, which is composed of four key ingredients known as the “four
Ps”: Product, Pricing, Promotion and Placement (Kottler et all, 1999). Contrary to
what one would expect, brands are not seen as a tactical tool for promotion
management, which refers to communications activities including advertisement,
sales-people approach to customers, special promotions, public relations, etc. This is
evidence that marketers regard brands as a key characteristic that helps delivering the
core benefits to the consumers. The implication of this understanding is that brands do
more that just transmitting persuasive signals (horizontal differentiation), they also a
deeper role in transforming customers’ experience of using the product (vertical
differentiation). Such customer benefits such as trust and satisfaction have a
translation into the strategic motivations that underlie trademark management.
The issue of whether or not to go ahead with branding a product depends on a
complex list of potential motivations that have to be balanced with the cost of the
branding strategy – see Box 1. In deciding to create a brand, and whether or not
6
protecting it legally through a registered trademark, a company must define its overall
brand strategy. According the marketing literature there is a proliferation of strategic
intents behind involving situations when companies a company introduces additional
items in existing products under the same brand, such as new flavours, ingredients,
colours, packages, which eventually evolve to become sub-brands (e.g. Diet Coke,
Pepsi Blue). Another common strategy, called brand-stretching or brand extension,
consists of using a successful brand image to launch new or modified products into
new categories (a classic cases being the way Honda penetrated the US car market
having achieved a great reputation for motorcycle engineering). Since there are no
established taxonomies we give our own, incomplete, list of motives and strategies
behind the uses of brands.
Box 1. Strategic motivations behind the creation of a brand
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Building inelasticity around the product and achieving a premium pricing (differentiation, line
extensions)
Opening up opportunities to enter new product segments or entirely new lines of business (brandstretching)
Penetrating new geographical markets (geographical market diversification)
Entering the market for trademarks (licensing)
Saving on promotion expenditures (building loyalty)
Achieving greater bargaining power against suppliers (supply chain coordination)
Signalling changes in strategy or changes in corporate identity (internal and external marketing)
Prolonging the protection conferred by other IPRs after their expiration date (namely patents)
Naturally, as in the case of patents, trademarks are not identical in their value. The
value of patents is equated to the net money equivalent stemming from the
exploration of the rights associated to a particular idea or innovation (Grilliches, 1990,
p. 1690). The value of patent is generally understood to the magnitude of the
innovation protected (Trajtenberg, 1990, pg. 5). As for trademarks, what counts to
determine trademark equity is a set of characteristics such as name awareness,
customer loyalty, perceived quality and associations to the brand that add value to the
product being offered (Aaker, 1991). Trademark or brand equity influences the
market value of a firm, namely those large corporations acting on the global market.
Interbrand, a specialised consultancy firm, regularly releases reports where it
estimates which are the world’s most important brands – see Figure 1.
In seeking and maintaining trademark rights, companies making important economic
decisions. Companies are deciding to create or enhance a protected brand intended to
distinguishing themselves from other suppliers and rise above the competition.
Therefore, something deeper than horizontal differentiation might be at stake. By
monitoring what happens to trademarks we can learn a great deal about the
entrepreneurial dynamics of given firms or aggregates of firms as well as gain a lever
for making inferences about their marketing capabilities. This is the reason why
trademark statistics are interesting in spite of all the difficulties involved in their use
and interpretation.
7
Table 1. The world’s most valuable brands
1990
1992
1996
1997
1999
2000
1
Coca-cola
Marlboro
McDonald’s
Coca-cola
Coca-cola
Coca-cola
2
Kellogg’s
Coca-Cola
Coca-cola
Marlboro
Microsoft
Microsoft
3
McDonald’s
Intel
Disney
IBM
IBM
IBM
4
Kodak
Kellog
Kodak
McDonald’s
GE
GE
5
Marlboro
Nescafé
Sony
Disney
Ford
Nokia
6
IBM
Budweiser
Gillette
Sony
Disney
Intel
7
Amex
Pepsi-Cola
Mercedes
Kodak
Intel
Diney
8
Sony
Gillete
Levi’s
Intel
McDonald’s
Ford
Sources: www.interbrand.com, Kotler et al (1999), Grandstrand (1998)
3. Towards a trademark indicator
This section tries to make the case that trademarks constitute an unique and underutilised source for the analysis of the process of innovation and industrial evolution.
Trademarks rivals with patents in terms of accessibility and quantity of available data.
True, they do not exhibit the detail of information as patents show in the description
of a technological invention, the individual inventors that contributed to it and the
citations made of prior art. It is also not immediately clear what are trademarks really
indicating. However, the promise of adding a new indicator of innovative economic
activity to the rather scarce portfolio of output S&T indicators is a strong motivation
for research in this area. If that is true, the potential applications to fields such as
innovation studies, industrial evolution, business history and international trade can be
very rewarding. Of course, implications for public policy and management strategy
would follow.
Indicators in innovation studies
Indicators are means to obtain quantitative information about certain aspects of a
phenomenon. There are, of course, no perfect and complete indicators of innovation
as there are no perfect indicators of other socio-economic phenomena. The problem
with the innovation is because it is a multidimensional phenomenon related with
qualitative change involving economic, strategic, organisational and institutional
factors. Thus, in order to proceed and operationalise a trademark indicator it is
important to get to terms with the ontological properties of this tool for achieving
reliable knowledge.
Indicators consist in indirect observations of phenomena. Galileu used a telescope to
directly observe the planets. But obtaining evidence is not always so unintermediated.
but electrons were infinitely small, impossible to be seen or weighted or measured, so
that sophisticated instruments had to be invited to provided a notion of the dimension
of the phenomenon and its changes. In the same, social sciences cannot always rely on
8
interviews or case studies, especially, if the goal is to achieve generalisable
conclusions.
As far as innovation indicators are concerned, they convey behavioural information
on social entities. They detect and register “movement” of individuals, companies,
institutions and countries. The source of knowledge is not so much “people telling”
but “people doing”.
The imperfect nature of the assessments is always present. Indicators capture, but only
partially so, some dimensions of the object at stake. One needs, therefore, to be aware
of the intrinsic limitations of an indicator, it is not an objective, complete
measurement.
Indicators are institutionally created and maintained. They are socially constructed,
growing more out of practise e rather than out of theory. There is nothing sacred about
them. For instance, there are no a-priori reasons to think that registered trademarks do
not involved as judgemental and non-technical process than patents on inventions.
They often turn out to be given other uses from those originally intended. In fact,
something that makes trademarks close to other S&T indicators such as R&D and
patents, is that academics were also not involved the invention neither in control of
improvements in measurement (Patel and Pavitt, 1994, p. 15).
Numbers can be misleading as much as words. As Smith (2003) stresses, indicators
are not simple numbers. They tend to come with strings attached to some theory that
models they way quantitative information is produced and/or interpreted. Even though
we abide by the view of innovation as an evolving process of interactions and
feedbacks, we are well aware that labelling trademarks as a “output indicator of
innovation” might be misleading. It is uncomfortably compatible with the linear
model of innovation. This invites us to follow the recommendation made by Martin
and Irvine (1983) to take the trademarks as a partial indicator of performance that
should be combined with other information in order to produce reliable results.
The study of the sources and patterns of technological change has progressed
enormously since the mid 1960s when the first internationally comparable statistics
on R&D activities were published by the OECE on the basis of work by C. Freeman
and A. Young. Despite having such a long history S&T indicators remain contested
even today, one paramount reason is because of the emphasis on inputs rather than on
outputs and impacts (Godin, 2003). In order to realised the potential of trademarks we
need to identify the basic procedures that should be involved in counting and
comparing. Only with scepticism and care can trademarks be used as indirect measure
of innovation and a tool to assess structural changes in the economy.
From trademark data to information on innovation and industrial phenomena
Given the experience with using patents as proxy measures of technological activities
(Pavitt, 1985; Griliches, 1990) it is natural to take advantage of this accumulated
knowledge and techniques to begin the search for prudent practices in manipulating
trademark data.
9
As with patents, trademark statistics have the advantage of having a reasonably
unambiguous legal definition and being collected and classified by (the same)
specialized institutions for a long time. From our point of view, the most important
classification is based on the 1957 Nice Agreement Concerning the International
Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.
The Nice classification system consists of a categorisation of goods and services for
the purposes of registering trademarks and service marks. It is regularly revised and it
is on its 8th edition, which is in force January 1, 2002, has 34 classes of manufactured
goods and 11 classes of services (three new service classes were added in the last
edition).
Perhaps the most problematic issue with trademark classes is that are much too
aggregate to allow us to be bold in our inferences. Take Class 5 for instance. In this
class trademarks covering the product categories of pharmaceutical, medical and
veterinary preparations are mixed with dental wax, disinfectants, fungicides,
herbicides, and even food for babies. This advises us to be extremely cautions in out
interpretations.
Another characteristic of trademark data is that a given trademark for a word or
symbol can be asked for one or all classes at the cost of a rising fee. That means that
the number of counts in the total classes will be much larger than the total number of
trademarks filled. This is a feature absent from patent data and might be as revealing
as well as confusing.
A given product or supplier can also be protected by a number of trademarks. For
instance, the Coca-cola beverage is protected by the word mark “Coca-Cola”, by its
distinguish logo (the stylised letters composing the word underlined by a ribbon) and
by a three-dimensional mark protecting the distinctive shape of the bottle. Intel
Corporation not only is protected its Intel name with word mark and a corresponding,
it filed sound mark as well. These considerations mean that there is no clear-cut
correspondence between a new product and a new trademark. Raw data can lead us to
over evaluate the patterns observed. However, the multiplication of trademarks in
certain product categories surely constitutes evidence of increased competition.
Box 2. Examples of overlapping protection using trademarks an other IPRs
According to Coca-Cola corporation its flagship brand is the most recognised trademark in the world,
recognised by 94% of the world’s population and is the most widely recognised word after "OK". The
trademark of the word “Coca-Cola” is obtained in 1887. The type of print used for the logo is called
"Spencerian Script". In an effort to safeguard the bottle contour, on 1977 it was registered as a three
dimensional mark. The argument was that the packaging distinguished the beverage from others.
The musical notation of the describing
the registered Intel’s jingle is:
It is clear that the relationships beween the
trademarks and other IPRs, namelly
industrial design and copyright, are not
very clear. Another source of ambiguity is
the relationship between trademarks and
domain names on the Internet.
Sources: www.coca-cola.pt, www.dww.com/articles/protect.htm
10
Another limitation of trademark data is that is not common for government agencies
to classify trademark applications according the main product line of the applicant
company. There are many other hidden biases that escape our attention in the
unknown territory of trademark indicators. One lesson taken from patent analysis is
that decisions to file an IPR vary among different companies, technologies, industries
and countries. Likewise, there is no reason that decisions to trademark do not vary as
well. One further, complication is the anecdotal observation is there are many
unregistered brands in use in the marketplace. This is similar to the problems found in
patents: not all inventions can be patented and not all patentable inventions are
patented. In the case of trademarks, brands take the place of inventions. Unlike
inventions, however, a given brand might be protected by many trademarks (words,
logos, 3D mark, sound) whereas an invention is supposed be protected by just one
patent. The effect of these factors on different companies, product categories,
industries and countries is not yet fully clear.
On the positive side the large and increasing numbers of trademarks allow us to be
confident that many aspects of corporate commercial activities will be revealed.
Because they are cheaper and do not require a technological breakthrough, a much
wider range of small and medium firms are likely to be involved in applying for
trademark rights compared to patent rights. Moreover, give the know limitations of
patents this indicator has a comparative advantage in covering service and software
development activities. This allows us to cover a wider spectrum of the industrial
tissue.
In this paper is use CTMs as source of internationally comparable trademark statistics.
Why use OHIM data? This EU trademark systems is naturally biased towards
members states commercial activities, having, therefore, an overrepresentation of
European trademarks. However, the EU is the world’s largest market, thus is probably
the most important space for protect brands from theft and counterfeiting.
Applications from all countries are on a equal footing as international law
administered by WIPO guaranties equal opportunities. Furthermore, trademark
applications are judged against precisely the same criteria using the same database.
From an instrumental perspective, OHIM presents the researcher with a wealth of
trademark data and reports accessible online for free.
To our knowledge the first explicit reference to trademarks as an indicator of
innovation is a report on the 2001 Germany’s Technological Performance written
Report written on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research byby a
group of 8 German research centres (Velling, 2002). Here the team of authors that
trademarks can no longer be considered a subordinate industrial right. The fact that
the number of trademark registrations filed in Germany tripled during the 1990s area
a “clear indication that trademarks are being assigned considerably more importance
than in the past” (Velling, 2002, p. 20). Although, novelty is not a requirement for
registering a trademark, the authors say one can safely assume that trademarks are
filed primarily for new products and services. They also point out that commercial
enterprises constitute a large number of applicants. Another positive aspect
emphasised in this pioneering contribution is related to the degree the indicator is updated and keeping pace with the market, since in Germany it takes just six months for
a trademark to be entered into databases after application. This section of the report is
11
rather short (4 consolidated pages in a total content of 174 pages) and lets many
questions unasqued and unanswered. Of course, as a policy report its natural not to go
deeper into methodological issues. But, why, for example, authors prefer to count
trademarks applications and not registration? Our prime answer would be that due to
the lack of technical content in trademarks, applications reflect much better the
trademarking intentions (and the revealing underlying motives of protecting
innovation and marketing capabilities of companies). We follow this route and try to
provide a new map of the territory.
4. Empirical exploration
The study we report is of relevance to two questions: (1) can innovation and industrial
changed be assessed trademarks-based?, (2) more precisely, can significant
differences and evolution in performance be identified? We would maintain a positive
answer for both questions. Although the methodological understanding for using
trademarks is far from matured, our results show that this indicator can generate
useful insights for researchers, policy-makers and managers. In addressing these
research questions we hope not only to demonstrate the power of this type of data for
studying innovation and industrial change but also to shed light on the case of
Portugal in the European context.
Trends in Community Trade Marks (CTM) applications
In this sub-section we present the moving picture of the rate and direction of CTM
applications. We start by the basic observation of aggregate trademark fillings. Figure
2 shows the number of total CTM filled since the point in when this IPR was
instituted. In 7 years 294 625 CTMs were filled by companies from the EU and
around the world. Of this total 65% were word marks and 34% were figurative marks
(logos).
Figure 1. Total CTMs filled, 1996-2002
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Source: IHMI (2003), Annual Report 2002
Note: 2000 data point is based on estimation by interpolation.
12
The graph shows an initial bubble. This very high level of trademark applications is
probably due to the start of new registration system. Many marks already existing and
decisions of economic agents who already were prepared were accumulating up the
start of the new system. So, if we compute the average rate of growth using the
extreme years of 1996 and 2002 we have a 0,6% change. But the wrong message is
conveyed: something is going on, the demand for CTM is developing. In fact,
ignoring the value of the year, we get a 8,7% growth of applications per annum. Latter
years reveal a downward trend in the number of applications which is, probably,
caused by the general macroeconomic downturn and a the readjustment of business
investment expectations.
What about the territorial origin of those applications? As expected, table 2 shows
applications are dominated by the 15 EU states, that the proportion of EU trademarks
does not seem to be loosing ground. Trademarks appears to be (increasingly)
important for EU companies.
Table 2. – Origin of CTM applications, 1996-2002
Annual average 1996-2001
Year 2002
Number of applications
%
Number of applications
%
EU-15
Rest of the world
25 679
15 908
62
38
29 435
15 669
65
35
Total
41 587
100
45 104
100
Source: OHMI (2003), Annual Report 2002; Own calculations
Within EU member-countries exhibit different performances, table 3 compares them.
Trademark applications are strongly concentrated. Germany, UK and Italy have 60%
of the total CTM filled in the period from 1996 to 2001.4 These first five countries in
trademark applications correspond to the largest European economies, are responsible
for 80% of all the fillings. The “rest of the world” is dominated by the US, which
represents 78% of the CTM filled between 1996 and 2001. Actually, the US is that
biggest single user of the CTM system, it applied for more CTMs than any other
European on its own. As such, this suggests that “trademarking” in the EU large and
sophisticated market is a comprehensive reflection of the trends and patterns in the
development of marketing activities of firms.
In order to refine the analysis, we chose to normalise the number of CTMs by the
population and the size of the economy. This are usual procedures to deal with patents
and they are a good technique to gain a sense of scale. And, in fact, the ranking
changes considerably. If we discount the abnormal performance of Luxembourg, we
see a number of small countries the ladder, including all the Nordic countries, Ireland
and Austria. Their pattern of business activity appears to be very trademark intensive
in the European context. Of the large countries the UK and Germany come out best,
and Italy and France the worse.5
4
Detailed 2002 data not available.
Conclusions must be prudent. As trademarks we are counting my types of distinctive signs such word
marks, logos, 3D, etc. Moreover, specific goods and services can protected by many trademarks at the
same time. Strategies to protect products may vary from country to country.
5
13
The specific case of Portugal does not surprise to the light of other known pointers
such as the standard S&T indicators R&D and patents. A time that the UE is the main
destination of our exportations, these data show how important is to have a deeper
understanding of the Portuguese external competitiveness. Portugal lags both in
technological capabilities but also in marketing capabilities. However, an interesting
observation in terms of CTMs, is that Portugal is behaving against the cycle, that is
Portuguese CTM applications start very low but grows faster than the EU average.
Table 3. Trademark performance among the EU, 1996-2001
1996 - 2001
MC/Pop
MC/PIB
DE
41554
LU
2852
LU
61
GB
32664
DK
734
SE
25
IT
17713
SE
623
DK
25
ES
15679
IE
619
GB
22
FR
14944
GB
547
IE
21
NL
6586
DE
506
ES
20
SE
5530
AT
456
DE
20
DK
3915
FI
453
FI
18
AT
3700
NL
415
AT
17
BE
3655
ES
397
NL
15
FI
2347
BE
356
BE
14
IE
2344
IT
310
IT
12
PT
1543
FR
254
FR
10
LU
1252
PT
154
PT
9
648
GR
61
GR
4
154074
EU
410
UE
17
GR
EU
Sources: IHMI (2003), Statistics of community trade marks, Situation at the end of 2002;
OCDE, Labour Force Statistics; Own calculations
Note: BE – Belgium ; DK – Denmark; DE – Germany; GR – Greece; ES – Spain; FR –
France; IE – Ireland; IT – Italy; LU – Luxembourg; NL – Netherlands; AT – Austria;
PT – Portugal; FI – Finland; SE – Sweden; GB – United Kingdom
On dynamic terms EU’s “trademarking” performance as been ahead of the “rest of the
world”. Between 1996 and 2001 the CTM applications for the EU-15 taken together
grew annually 2.4%, excluding 1996 we have average annual growth of 9.8%. Within
the EU, the best performers were Spain and Greece, followed by Luxembourg and
Portugal. Sweden and Netherlands are on the other end of the spectrum. For reasons
of sensitivity control, we calculate the annual rate of growth including and excluding
1996 and 2002 as reference years.
14
Table 4. Detailed annual data for the EU-15, 1996-2002
1996
BE
DK
DE
GR
ES
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL
AT
PT
FI
SE
GB
UE
643
706
7 714
85
2 794
1 610
282
2 211
137
1 069
678
161
358
855
5 705
1997
418
473
3 911
65
1 468
1 891
217
2 070
112
908
393
183
282
713
3 659
1998
1999
562
526
4 811
78
1 965
2 131
289
2 378
148
877
537
232
330
787
4 234
2000
574
621
7 040
111
2 609
2 735
436
3 263
227
994
615
274
387
870
5 303
2001
771
822
9 793
161
3 417
3 406
636
4 221
349
1 632
766
396
507
1 346
7 622
687
767
8 285
148
3 426
3 171
484
3 570
279
1 106
711
297
483
959
6 141
Growth rate Growth rate Growth rate Growth rate
2002
96-01
97-01
96-02
97-02
598
727
7 113
197
3 759
3 411
429
3 719
233
1 055
717
378
438
801
5 860
1.1%
1.4%
1.2%
9.7%
3.5%
12.0%
9.4%
8.3%
12.6%
0.6%
0.8%
10.7%
5.1%
1.9%
1.2%
10.4%
10.2%
16.2%
17.9%
18.5%
10.9%
17.4%
11.5%
20.0%
4.0%
12.6%
10.2%
11.4%
6.1%
10.9%
-1.0%
0.4%
-1.2%
12.8%
4.3%
11.3%
6.2%
7.7%
7.9%
-0.2%
0.8%
13.0%
2.9%
-0.9%
0.4%
6.2%
7.4%
10.5%
20.3%
17.0%
10.3%
12.0%
10.3%
13.0%
2.5%
10.5%
12.9%
7.6%
2.0%
8.2%
25 008 16 763 19 885 26 059 35 845 30 514 29 435
3.4%
12.7%
2.4%
9.8%
Sources: IHMI (2002), Detailed Applications Statistics. Situation at the end of June 2002;
IHMI (2003), Annual Report 2002; Own calculations
Note: Data for 2000 are estimations.
Heterogeneity is also evident in terms of the distribution of applications by NICE
classes. Table 5 shows the ten most “trademarked” product classes between 1996 and
2002. These absorbed 53.2% of the total applications. In 2002 the most demanded
product categories were: Instruments (Class 9), Research (Class 42), Business
Consultancy (Class 35), Paper Products (Class 16) and Education (Class 16).6
Table 5. Most “trademarked” NICE product classes, 1996 to 2002
Top 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
NICE
Class
9
42
16
35
41
25
38
5
36
3
Applications
1996-2001
79.374
64.171
44.927
41.535
32.935
29.659
29.292
21.276
20.618
17.864
%
12.1
9.8
6.9
6.3
5.0
4.5
4.5
3.3
3.2
2.7
58.3
Top 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NICE
Class
9
42
35
16
41
25
5
38
3
36
Applications
2002
12.961
8.490
8.029
6.941
6.237
5.681
4.797
4.362
3.797
3.407
%
10.7
6.9
6.6
5.7
5.1
4.7
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.8
53.2
Source: IHMI (2003). Statistics of community trade marks. Situation at the end of 2002; Own
calculations
6
It is still not clear is this is due to a great dynamism of innovative activities in this product classes or
rather a manifestation of toughness of competition.
15
How do, on the whole, intangible products measure up to intangible ones? Table 6
shows that while goods classes still count as the major segment, services are rising
fast in importance. This might be interpreted as evidence of structural change in the
EU economies. The latest OECD figures point out that the service sectors acounts of
70% of OECD’s GDP (OECD, 2003). The study by Velling and his colleagues (2002)
find the same pattern for German home trademark applications. They also suggest that
behind the spectacular increase of service marks in the 1990s one of the possible
contributing factors is an increase of trademark applications by manufacturing
companies.
Table 6. Structure and sectoral dynamics of CTM “trademarking”
1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002
Goods
Services
74
26
72
28
69
31
65
35
58
42
Growth rate 96-02 Growth rate 97-02
66
34
0.4%
6%
9%
14%
Fonte: IHMI (2002), Detailed Applications Statistics, Situation at the end of June 2002; IHMI
(2003), Statistics of community trade marks. Situation at the end of 2002; Own
calculations
Note: Desagregated data for 2000 nor available
If services are a dynamic category, how have services themselves changed in terms of
structure? Looking for the individual service classes can give another insight of what
was the direction of development in services, what specific services drove the overall
increase in services. Table 7 shows the composition of the service trademarks by
different service classes, while table 8 presents the rates of growth7 of the different
classes. The services having more trademark applications are Research (Class 42),
Business Consultancy (Class 35), Education (Class 41) and Telecoms (Class 38).
These services are usually regarded as Knowledge-based services.
Table 7. Composition of CTM service applications
NICE Class
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Total
Descriptor
1996-2002
%
Business Consultancy
Finance
Construction
Telecommunications
Transportation
Processes
Education
Research
Restaurants and Hotels
Medical Care
Personal Services
49564
24025
17814
33654
17346
6607
39172
72661
1883
1501
506
19
9
7
13
7
2
15
27
1
1
0.2
Services
264733
100
Source: IHMI (2003), Detailed Applications Statistics, Situation at the end of June 2002
7
Classes 43, 44 and 45 were added latter in the period, therefore growth rates were not included.
16
The following table presents trademark application evolution by type of service for
the available years. NICE Class growing above of the average of the service sector
were again of knowledge-based services based on knowledge: Business Consultancy
(Class 35) and Telecoms (Class 38).
Table 8. CTM growth within service product categories
NICE Class
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Total
Descriptor
Business Consultancy
Finance
Construction
Telecommunications
Transportation
Processes
Education
Research
Services
Growth rate 1996-2002 Growth rate 1997-2002
12.5
5.3
2.2
9.1
6.0
6.5
6.3
1.7
20.0%
14.4%
14.4%
16.5%
15.3%
15.2%
15.2%
8.6%
7.4
16.2%
Source: IHMI (2002), Detailed Applications Statistics. Situation at the end of June 2002;
IHMI (2003), Statistics of community trade marks. Situation at the end of 2002;
Own calculations
Two difficulties limit, however, our capacity to produce more precise conclusions. On
the one hand, NICE classes are very aggregate, containing many different kinds of
products under same heading. On the other hand, the initial bubble of applications and
of the fact to make use of few years make us unable to produce safe conclusions on
the comparative dynamics of product classes.
Patterns of use of national trademark by Portuguese firms
The oldest trademark in Portugal that is still standing today was registered February
20, 1890. The trademark Real Companhia Vinícola do Norte de Portugal given to the
company with the same name for the specific uses of stamping in Port wine casks.8
Among the ten oldest registered trademarks the majority of them correspond to the
wine and olive oil business. which gives an impression of the productive profile of the
Portuguese economy.
This section reports evidence from the period from 1980 to 2001. Trademark filled by
the Portuguese industrial property office (INPI) to resident company surpassed annual
GDP growth. The growth was 10% a year. Portuguese trademarkers are mostly
business firms (80%), the rest are private individuals (most of whom are likely to be
owners of small firms). Concession rates (trademarks registered on the base of
trademarks applied) are 86% for residents and 96% for non-residents. Non residents
tend to have trademarks that last longer, they keep paying their fees to support the
trademarks: total drop-out in the period was 11% where as residents dropped 19% of
the trademarks registered in the period. Non-residents have a lower growth rate of
applications, these companies’ applications peaked just after Portugal became a
member of the European Economic Community. Among non-residents USA (39% of
all non-resident applications) is the largest filler, followed by the UK (15%), Spain
8
This mark was registered as an international trademark in 1925
17
(12%), Japan (6%), France (4%), Germany (3%) and Brazil (3%). On the EU fillings
account for 42% of the total non-resident trademarking. From the mid-1990s Spanish
and Brazilian companies became the most dynamic foreign trademarkers.
National marks are also classified on the basis of the of NICE Agreement. The most
demanded classes by residents consist of Pharmaceutical and Hygiene Products (Class
5), Instruments(Class 5), followed by Detergents and Cosmetics (Class 3), Paper
Products and Clothing and Footwear (Class 25). This pattern discloses some
differentiation by applications of residents and, above all, a predominance of products
face to the services. However, the last years of the period the panorama suffered some
alterations, with classes typically of services be more demanded, namely Class 41
(Education), Class 42 (Research) and Class 35 (Business Consultancy).
Trends for both residents and non-residents follow the standard of sectoral change in
line with processes of economic development. These transformations essentially are
characterised by a gradual fall of the proportional importance of the tangible goods
and by increases in the service products. Table 9 presents this pattern. As expected,
non-residents do not trademark as much services as the residents give the fact that
services are basically non-transactional goods. Also, the weigh of the national wine
industry comes out in the detailed data, Class 33 (Beverages) is much more
“trademarked” by residents than by non-residents. In the service categories, the
resident entities apply for a relatively larger number of trademarks in services that are
dependent on proximity: Restaurants and Hotels (Class 43), Medical Care (Class 44)
and Personal Services (Class 45).
Table 9. - Distribution of national trademark applications by goods and services
Residents
Non-residents
Goods
Services
Total
Goods
Services
Total
80-84
89.7%
10.3%
4665
87.8%
12.2%
4435
85-89
87.1%
12.9%
9285
87.4%
12.6%
9971
90-94
80.5%
19.5%
22669
84.6%
15.4%
22563
95-99
66.3%
33.7%
31279
78.9%
21.1%
17700
2000-02
51.0%
49.0%
27751
72.4%
27.6%
7575
Total
68.4%
31.6%
95649
82.2%
17.8%
62244
9
Source: INPI; Own calculations
The information obtained from our IPR survey shows that the interest for and actual
use of IPRs is still very limited. Only 39% of business firms state having acquaintance
with INPI activities, while a smaller proportion (19%) acknowledges actual use of
IPRs or intention of their use in the near future. These values have a statistically
significant variance across sectors and display a positive association with firm size.
9
June 2002.
18
In terms of attitude, more than half of firms state having a “low interest” in IP issues.
with responses varying between 54.0% and 86.7% for different IPR types.
Trademarks are the IPR modality showing higher attraction, with 17.8% of the firms
showing “high” interest for it and an additional 28.2% “medium” interest.
In terms of actual use 4.2% of the surveyed firms state that they have applied for
Patents or Utility Models while 17.7% applied for Trademarks and 2.6% for
protection related to Technical Designs and Industrial Models.
These results are not surprising or particularly different from what has been observed
elsewhere. They stem from a variety of reasons. the most important ones being: (1)
economic structure (relative low weight of both high tech industries and information
intensive services. and absence of large firms acting on global markets); (2) low
supply of critical competencies (required to explore commercially IPRs and manage
complementarities within IPR portfolios); (3) low accessibility both to demanding
users and to technology markets (this inhibits the capacity to explore commercially
any IPR undertaken by firms. inventors or RTOs).
In relation to trademarks we found a number of variables that reveal a statistically
significant degree of association if we cross tab them against the importance attributed
to trademarks and their use in the past. These factors included the existence of an
autonomous marketing department in the company. the relationship with specialised
consultancies, the size of marketing budgets and the knowledge of the about the
national IPR agency’s services and role. A variable such as size is always strongly
significant in the analysis. However, whether a firm is geared to intermediary
products or final consumer products does not discriminate firm in terms of importance
attributed to trademarks but only in their actual use: consumer goods firms tend to use
more trademarks.
Since we found a great correlation between the uses of different IPR rights, it’s
perhaps not strange that there are clear distinctions between manufacturing industries
aggregated by OCDE classification of technological intensity. High and medium
high-technology industries tend to use more trademarks. So, the OECD Technological
intensity taxonomy seems to discriminate well industries in relation to their use of
trademarks. Services, that we divided between high and low intensity of operations
involving information, exhibit a clear divide: high information intensive service
sectors. such as consultancies, telecoms and banks employ much more trademarks in
their business strategies than sectors real-estate, restaurants, transportation and
personal service industries. These survey observations are in line with what the
trademark databases shown.
6. Avenues for further research
There is a variety of ways in which trademark data can be further testes and used to
produce more complex indicators. One suggestion is to follow the path already taken
by patent analysis and construct a Relative Marketing Advantage (RMA) indicator.
The RMA calculates a country’s industry share in each of the trademark classes
divided by the share of total trademarking in the same class. It can be though of
indicating the relative trademarking activity of an country (j) in a specific product
19
category (i), normalised to the total trademarking of the relevant population in that
class. Preliminary analysis using CTM data has shown that Portugal comparative
marketing advantages in Metal Goods (Class 6), Textiles (Class 24), Business
Consultancy (Class 35) and Personal Services (Class 45). While the first to results are
unproblematic give the weight of automotive components and clothing products in the
international trade profile of the Portuguese economy, the observation of the service
strenghts are more difficult to interpret give their non-transactional nature.
TM ij
RMA ij =
 TM kj
k
 TM il
l
  TM kl
k
l
Another avenue for further research, is to estimate the Propensities to Trademark
among different industries. This can be defined as the number of trademarks
registered per unit of marketing expenditure.
Other aspects can be further analysed such as the life cycle of brands, the factors and
trends in trademark licensing, etc. The relationship between trademarks and other
IPRs in the context of integrated IPR management could be a research topic worth
pursuing. Moreover, the ways different trademarks (word marks, logos, 3D, sound,
etc.) are combined to protect given products are not well understood. In fact, NICE
classes demanded are larger than the number of trademark applications, which we
expect to be also larger than the number of brands created.
7. Concluding remarks
This paper tried to tackle the question “what can we learn from trademarks?”. The
objective was to test trademarks as an output indicator of innovative activity as well
as an indicator of marketing capabilities of profit-oriented firms. Brands are a very
important s part of firms’ marketing plans and strategies, their used to protect their
products and business identity but also to for other purposes like business
diversification. Firms make a huge (and increasing) use of brands as a (dynamic)
competition tool. Applications for service trademarks have boomed in the 1990s, and
this trend was led by knowledge-based services: Business Consultancy, Telecoms and
Education. Within the EU-15, a number of small countries seem to exhibit very strong
marketing capabilities, namely the Nordic countries, Ireland and Austria. Portugal is
lagging behind. However, Portugal shows signs of structural change. It accompanies
the general trend towards service trademarking. Moreover the composition of this
trend is biased towards Education, Research and Business Consultancy categories.
Evidence from the Portuguese case suggests that companies that tend to use one kind
of IPR tends to use other IPRs. That implies that highly technological intensive
sectors, which use more patents, also are found to make a more intensive use of
trademarks. In the case of services, those usually considered as intensive users of
information are those that tend to use more patents, an observation that is compatible
20
with the evidence from EU trademarks on the dynamism of knowledge services in the
transition to the XXI century.
Combined with the increasing availability of electronic data, there is an opportunity to
use trademarks as indicators of innovation and industrial change. Constructing and
analysing indicators of science, technology and innovation is an increasingly
important task in carrying out research and policy actions in this whole area. We
argue that trademark data can serve the purpose of being a partial output indicator of
new products introduced in the market and, therefore, can be used as an empirical
yardstick for measuring change in economic activity. This can prove to be especially
useful for advancing research in innovation studies, industrial dynamics, international
economics, economic and business history, innovation policy, competition
intelligence, etc. However, in order to properly use numbers, and not be
unconsciously used by them. we need a set of methodological guidelines. This paper
tried also to contribute to the reflection around methodological issues. Much remains
to be done.
References
Aaker, D.A. e E. Joachimsthaler (2000), Brand Leadership, The Free press: New York.
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand, The Free press:
New York.
Cabral, L. (2000), Introduction Industrial Organization, The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Christopher. M. and M. Mcdonald (1991), Marketing: An Introdutcion, Pan...
Cohen, W.. R. Nelson and J. Walsh (2000), “Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability
conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not)”, NBER Working Paper Series
7552.
Dearlove. D. e S. Crainer (1999), As 50 Maiores Marcas. Biblioteca Executive Digest,
Abril/Controljornal Editora: Linda-a-velha.
Diamon. S.A. (1983), “The historical development of trademarks”. trademark Reporter. vol. 73. no. 3.
pp. 222-47.
Doern. G. B. (1999), Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies. Pinter. Londres.
Economides. Nicholas (1987), ‘The Economics of Trademarks’. TradeMark Register, vol. 78, pp. 523539.
Godin. B. (2003), “The emergence of S&T indicators: Why did governments supplement statistics with
indicators?”, Research Policy, vol. 32, pp. 679-691.
Granstrand, Ö. (1999), The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property – Towards
Intellectual Property, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, Northampton.
Griliches, Z.. (1990), “Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey”. Journal of Economic
Literature, vol. 27, pp. 1661-707.
Kotler, P.. G. Armstrong. J. Saunders e V. Wong (1999), Principles of Marketing, Second European
Edition, Prentice Hall Europe.
21
Martin. B. and J. Irvine (1983). “Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress
in radioastronomy”. Research Policy. vol. 12. pp. 61-90.
Narin, F. and D. Olivastro (1988), “Technology indicators based on patents and patent citations”, in
van Raam. A. (ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology. North
Holland. Amsterdam. p. 465-5.
OECD (2003), STI Scoreboard 2003, OECD: Paris.
Patel, P. (1998), “Indicators for systems of innovation and system interactions”, IDEA Paper series 11.
STEP Group.
Patel, P. and K. Pavitt (1994), “Patterns of economic activity: Their measurement and interpretation”,
in Stoneman. P. (ed.), Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technical Change.
Blackwell: Oxford.
Pavitt. K. (1985), “Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and Problems”.
Scientometrics, Vol. 7, Nos 1-2, pp. 77-99.
Scherer. F.M. (1983), “The propensity to patent”, International Journal of Industrial Organisation, vol.
1, pp. 107-28.
Smith, K. (2003), “Measuring innovation”, forthcoming in J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson
(eds), Understanding Innovation - Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
Trajtenberg, M. (1990), Economic Analysis of Product Innovation: The Case of CT Scanners, Harvard
University Press: Cambridge. Massachusetts.
Trajtenberg, M. (2001), “Innovation in Israel 1968-1997: A comparative analysis using patent data”,
Research Policy, vol. 30, pp. 363-89.
Velling, J. (ed.) (2002), 2001 Germany’s Technological Performance, Bundesministerium für Bildung
und Forschung.
Wilkins. M. (1992), “The negleted intangible asset: The influence of the Trade Mark on the rise of the
modern corporation”, in Harvey and Jones (eds). ... . pp. 691-707.
Appendix
NICE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chemicals used in industry. science and photography. as well as in agriculture. horticulture and
forestry; unprocessed artificial resins. unprocessed plastics; manures; fire extinguishing compositions;
tempering and soldering preparations; chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs; tanning
substances; adhesives used in industry.
Paints. varnishes. lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants;
mordants; raw natural resins; metals in foil and powder form for painters. decorators. printers and
artists.
Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning. polishing. scouring and
abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery. essential oils. cosmetics. hair lotions; dentifrices.
Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing. wetting and binding compositions; fuels
(including motor spirit) and illuminants; candles and wicks for lighting.
Pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations; sanitary preparations for medical purposes; dietetic
substances adapted for medical use. food for babies; plasters. materials for dressings; material for
stopping teeth. dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides. Herbicides.
Common metals and their alloys; metal building materials; transportable buildings of metal; materials
of metal for railway tracks; non-electric cables and wires of common metal; ironmongery. small items
22
of metal hardware; pipes and tubes of metal; safes; goods of common metal not included in other
classes; ores.
7. Machines and machine tools; motors and engines (except for land vehicles); machine coupling and
transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than handoperated; incubators for eggs.
8. Hand tools and implements (hand operated); cutlery; side arms; razors.
9. Scientific. nautical. surveying. photographic. cinematographic. optical. weighing. measuring.
signalling. checking (supervision). life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and
instruments for conducting. switching. transforming. accumulating. regulating or controlling
electricity; apparatus for recording. transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data
carriers. recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus;
cash registers. calculating machines. data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing
apparatus.
10. Surgical. medical. dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments. artificial limbs. eyes and teeth;
orthopedic articles; suture materials.
11. Apparatus for lighting. heating. steam generating. cooking. refrigerating. drying. ventilating. water
supply and sanitary purposes.
12. Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land. air or water.
13. Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks.
14. Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith. not included in
other classes; jewellery. precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments.
15. Musical instruments.
16. Paper. cardboard and goods made from these materials. not included in other classes; printed matter;
bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists'
materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching
material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers'
type; printing blocks.
17. Rubber. gutta-percha. gum. asbestos. mica and goods made from these materials and not included in
other classes; plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture; packing. stopping and insulating
materials; flexible pipes. not of metal.
18. Leather and imitations of leather. and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes;
animal skins. hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas. parasols and walking sticks; whips. harness
and saddlery.
19. Building materials (non-metallic); non-metallic rigid pipes for building; asphalt. pitch and bitumen;
non-metallic transportable buildings; monuments. not of metal.
20. Furniture. mirrors. picture frames; goods (not included in other classes) of wood. cork. reed. cane.
wicker. horn. bone. ivory. whalebone. shell. amber. mother-of-pearl. meerschaum and substitutes for
all these materials. or of plastics.
21. Household or kitchen utensils and containers (not of precious metal or coated therewith); combs and
sponges; brushes (except paint brushes); brush-making materials; articles for cleaning purposes;
steelwool; unworked or semi-worked glass (except glass used in building); glassware. porcelain and
earthenware not included in other classes.
22. Ropes. string. nets. tents. awnings. tarpaulins. sails. sacks and bags (not included in other classes);
padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials.
23. Yarns and threads. for textile use.
24. Textiles and textile goods. not included in other classes; bed and table covers.
25. Clothing. footwear. headgear.
26. Lace and embroidery. ribbons and braid; buttons. hooks and eyes. pins and needles; artificial flowers.
27. Carpets. rugs. mats and matting. linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors; wall
hangings (non-textile).
28. Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles not included in other classes; decorations for
Christmas trees.
29. Meat. fish. poultry and game; meat extracts; preserved. dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies.
jams. fruit sauces; eggs. milk and milk products; edible oils and fats.
30. Coffee. tea. cocoa. sugar. rice. tapioca. sago. artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from
cereals. bread. pastry and confectionery. ices; honey. treacle; yeast. baking-powder; salt. mustard;
vinegar. sauces (condiments); spices; ice.
31. Agricultural. horticultural and forestry products and grains not included in other classes; live animals;
fresh fruits and vegetables; seeds. natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals. malt.
23
32. Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; fruit drinks and fruit juices; syrups
and other preparations for making beverages.
33. Alcoholic beverages (except beers).
34. Tobacco; smokers' articles; matches
35. Advertising; business management; business administration; office functions.
36. Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs.
37. Building construction; repair; installation services.
38. Telecommunications.
39. Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement.
40. Treatment of materials.
41. Education; providing of training; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities.
42. Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and
research services; design and development of computer hardware and software; legal services.
43. Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.
44. Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals;
agriculture. horticulture and forestry services.
45. Personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals; security services for
the protection of property and individuals.
24