The Korea Times has a piece today about local cosmetic manufacturers packaging and naming their product in a manner similar to famous names:
Some such items widely noticed by consumers are Skin Food Black Sugar Mask, which resembles the look and name of Fresh Face Sugar Mask. The same goes for Face Shop Gel Eyeliner, which is similar to Bobby Brown Gel Eyeliner, and Etude Mascara Fixer that looks and sounds like Clarins Fix Mascara.
.jpg)
A problem here is most of the seeming violations are not really violations at all. Yes there is a similarity in the naming, but its descriptive in nature. In fact the name “Fresh Face Sugar Mask” is probably unregistrable under Korean Trademark Law, because it is arguably descriptive. The “expert” quoted in the KT article gives a similar comment.
The more interesting quotes though are some of the consumers in the article:
Consumers welcome the resemblance local brands are offering because it opens more options for frugal shoppers reluctant to spend too much on cosmetic products.
“I know that local and foreign make-up quality can’t be the same, but I think to some extent they are similar so I’m not complaining about the cheaper items offered in local stores,” said Suh Hae-min, a 23-year-old office worker in Seoul.
Price differences vary from 10,000 won to as much as 30,000 won.
“I often buy Korean brands because they’re less costly and when I have some extra cash, I invest in foundations and mascara made in Europe,” said Kim Yoo-mi, a 26-year-old business consultant.
Now compare that to this article of the past couple days:
The Commerce Ministry announced yesterday the results of a poll of 2,809 people in 21 countries, which said if a Korean product is worth $100, an American product of equal quality would be worth $149 and a German product $155…Korean products’ brand image still lacks the lure of products from developed countries. The respondents also said that when a Korean product is valued at $100, a Japanese product would be worth $149 while a Chinese product would be $71.
Now cosmetics are basically a non-cyclical product, its all the same chemicals no matter the name or inert color. So even Koreans are willing to spend much more on a similar product if its made overseas (in cosmetics at least). I could say something snarky about fakes, but let me just leave you with, perhaps Korea needs to learn brand building begins at home.
27 Comments
Intellectual property is intellectual theft
Bobby Brown Gel Eyeliner? Is that Whitney or Zappa’s Bobby Brown?
A tad racist, no? I just bought some Jacky Chan yellow lip gloss.
dlatn> Name me one major invention that came from the IP free Soviet Union.
et al>Actualy its BOBBI Brown, not the guy from New Edition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbi_Brown
“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.”
Sandra Day O’Connor (Industrial arts are included in the term ‘arts’, and ‘authors’ includes inventors)
“Intellectual property is intellectual theft”
Isn’t this similar to the commie or anarchist maxim ‘private property is theft’? Always gotta have some kind of troll, in this case a commie nut, to try to liven things up.
Let’s ban IP protection and see how long before we reach the Stone Age.
Actually, your point on branding is the more interesting point here. I don’t buy Korean toothpaste, but is LG-brand toothpaste still around?
Yes, if one can’t profit from his/her own inventions/creations/efforts then the incentive to do more is gone.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I’ve got nothing against intellectual property rights, I was just fiddling with an epigram.
However, one must pity those for whom monetary profit is the only conceivable incentive in life.
Was the existance of IP protection in the Stone Age a prerequisite for human technological development and Clarins Fix Mascara™ ?
And for those for little faith in Soviet inventive abilities, I present Yuri Gargarin.
Few of the world’s greatest inventions were made for profit, excluding perhaps the invention of intellectual property itself, without which others could not trade in the rights to profit from others’ inventions.
“Yes, if one can’t profit from his/her own inventions/creations/efforts then the incentive to do more is gone.”
You have no idea of what it’s like to love doing what you do. It has absolutely nothing to do with making a profit.
Straight down the line, cosmetic products in Korea, rock. Skin care especially. No comparison with anywhere else.
“Straight down the line, cosmetic products in Korea, rock. Skin care especially. No comparison with anywhere else.”
that’s right
Since when did the shape or look of a facial cream container become deemed as “intellectual
property”? Is the raised relief pattern on my toilet tissue “intellectual property” also?
dlatn> Refresh my memory, what did Yuri Invent? Or if you are talking about him as a symbol, how much of that inventive energy ended up in the lives of the average Soviet?
Net Kim> Actualy yes, take a look at: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5609725
The Abstract:
A multi-region paper structure having a transition region interconnecting relatively thinner regions is disclosed. The paper structure comprises a first region, a patterned second region, a third region, and transition region. The transition region interconnects the patterned second region with a background matrix. The background matrix comprises the first region and the third region. The first region comprises a plurality of discrete protuberances dispersed throughout the third region. The first and second regions are disposed at different elevations, and each has a thickness less than a thickness of the transition region. An apparatus and process for making the paper structure is also disclosed.
We’ve all see em, a quarter page advert on a cheap magazine, a computer generated image that appear scrambled at first, and the last page of Mad magazine. Focus, fold, go cross eyed all you want, you just can’t seem to get the picture.
Shadowy blurs of teapots or sailing boats, try to focus on it, and the image disappears.
A multi-region paper structure having a transition region interconnecting relatively thinner regions is disclosed. The paper structure comprises a first region, a patterned second region, a third region, and transition region. The transition region interconnects the patterned second region with a background matrix. The background matrix comprises the first region and the third region. The first region comprises a plurality of discrete protuberances dispersed throughout the third region. The first and second regions are disposed at different elevations, and each has a thickness less than a thickness of the transition region. An apparatus and process for making the paper structure is also disclosed.
I read this about five times, while in my mind I had flashing images of diamonds and other polytogonal protuberances, even varied colors here and there, I have little idea of what the writer intended.
Was it prose? Poetry? Philosophical treatise?.
Dram man, Yuri did nto invent anything, for what I know, he was the first man in space.
I don’t mind connecting the dots, but coloring in for fuck’s sake? What do you want, Technicolor?
“Consumers welcome the resemblance local brands are offering because it opens more options for frugal shoppers reluctant to spend too much on cosmetic products.”
Exactly. Before going on a rant about hoe Koreans rip off foreign manufacturers, you need to remember grocery stores and pharmacies back home often stock their own generic products on the shelves next to the brand name items, often with a sign that has the two prices written in bold letters to catch the attention of bargain shoppers.
I believe that the crux of dissent in the West over IP rights revolves not around their existence, which the majority opinion agrees are beneficial, but about the extended time periods for which such rights are now being granted. Likewise, there are serious disagreements over the granting of IP rights to substances found in nature. The public has an interest in recognizing the difference between developing a process that extracts a valuable “essence” from a natural substance and thereby renders it fit for some necessary human use, and corporations merely “branding” such substances for themselves. IP rights are a valued incentive to commerce and industry, but should not be viewed as permanent, unextinguishable rights to receive kickbacks. Otherwise, the competition incentive is removed from commerce.
My apologies is this sounds obtuse.
Wal-mart, Target, and other retailers often package their house brands to resemble market leaders, but nobody is fooled. The packaging in the photos looks different enough to me.
Below is a concrete example of the “IP rights to substances found in nature” Lirelou is talking about:
http://archive.salon.com/healt.....etic_test/
RE: the perspective that copyright laws lead to innovation.
I find this a very cynical perspective on human nature. We all want better medicines and cures for diseases, right? Most of the people I know, including my brother, that have gone into medical school or medical research have done so not for the money (especially with the US health insurance industry running the show and enormous student loan debt these professional incur), but for the chance to help people.
Just look at all the innovation and research done at the University level.
I don’t think there’s very many people that would be happy to just sit around all day doing nothing in a world with no intellectual property laws. In fact, we could finally get back to a time where we actually found cures for stuff instead of just treatments that guarantee dependence on drug companies for the rest of our lives.
There’s one fundamental difference that some of you are missing when it comes to this issue. Capitalism enables humans do build bigger and better ‘things’ because the profit motive enables people to raise the huge capital needed to do so. Without property rights and the profit motive, there would be little incentive to take on such risks.
Likewise with intellectual property rights. Without the profit motive, far less cash is available to create ‘big’ things. A lone scientist could take it upon himself to work for a cure for cancer or AIDS in his spare time, but many things in this world require huge amounts of capital. How can the individual do it, unless he has a lab and time at his disposal? Such things require support. Intellectual property rights enable the raising of large amounts of cash to undertake very large projects, ones that would be impossible without others putting up the cash.
Snow: I don’t totally disagree with you, but I think some kind of middle ground needs to be found in the case of intellectual property rights because, at least in the case of medicine (and I would argue the music industry as well) it is starting to work against the common good. Countries that are part of the WTO are starting to break copyright agreements and accept generic brands from India because on a basic practical level, the laws aren’t helping the people that need help. While I find practices of the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries deplorable, I must concede that they have produced more effective treatments than any other country that I know of.
Vacilando, I agree that a middle ground needs to be found, but the way some countries are going, they are ignoring the companies and going ahead and throwing out copyright protection which could have serious consequences down the road. For example, I read that Allied Pharmaceuticals offered Brazil a large discount on their products (25 or 30%) to stave off the breaking of the patent, but Brazil ignored this and decided to help their own home-grown companies to make generics. Many of the majors now offer some drugs at cost as well and even offer some at below cost or make donations. But even at cost, the price is often too much in some of these countries, so it is a dilemma. But the knee-jerk anti-corporate line of so many on this issue (not saying you are, but many others are in articles I’ve read) is tiresome as I know that many companies are making some effort to solve these problems. As you say, a middle ground needs to be found, but breaking patents hurts the search for needed drugs in the future. If these companies can’t make a profit on the drugs they produce (and the costs involved are absolutely huge), then they will stop making drugs for diseases of the poor and focus on drugs for the rich world who can afford them. I don’t know if it’s true, but I’ve heard that funding has decreased for AIDS drugs because of all the patent breaking that has happened. It is no longer profitable for companies to try to find new drugs. Why spend billions just to lose your investment to makers of generics?
“but the way some countries are going, they are ignoring the companies and going ahead and throwing out copyright protection which could have serious consequences down the road.”
Not really. Given that large corporation, including pharmaceutical makers, have the governments of most of the richest nations by the balls (thus ensuring that we’ll keep on padding the pockets of the corporations), a few impoverished nations allowing generic versions of patented drugs won’t much of an affect on the overall picture.
“Given that large corporation, including pharmaceutical makers, have the governments of most of the richest nations by the balls (thus ensuring that we’ll keep on padding the pockets of the corporations), a few impoverished nations allowing generic versions of patented drugs won’t much of an affect on the overall picture.”
Nice conspiracy theory, someguyinkorea. Sounds like typical groundless anti-corporation dogma. I’ve read (will try to find a link) that the breaking of patents has already had serious effects on the production of certain drugs, for AIDS in particular.
snow, it’s not a conspiracy theory. The laws in richer countries ensures that the drug companies name its price in order to turn a hefty profit. Are pharmaceutical companies running in the red? It’s ironic that you mention AIDS medicine because they certainly aren’t about to go tits up if they manufacture these drugs. Do they want to cure AIDS, save lives, or increase profits? It’s quite the ethical dilemma, isn’t it? But, please, tell me, how many people have died in impoverished countries because they couldn’t afford AIDS medicine?
The drug companies don’t want to lose money on their investment. Why should the companies risk their own cash for the greater good? A company is in business to make profit, not for the greater good. And yes, it is a conspiracy theory. Drugs companies can’t just name their price. The price is determined by several factors including what the market can bear.
Ethics, shmethics, if you want to save the world, please feel free to step up to the plate and put your own cash on the line to find cures for the world’s diseases. And as I said, research into AIDS drugs has decreased because companies see that they can no longer profit from them with countries breaking patents. Many are dying because of not being able to afford medicines, but instead of breaking patents, these countries can make very good deals with companies to provide the drugs at far below cost, freebies and other negotiated means. Giving the companies the finger and stealing their patented ideas only means that the companies are going to take their business elsewhere and they will think twice about dealing with such governments in the future. Think of socialists like Mugabe and Chavez. Who’s going to risk their own cash if your property can be grabbed from you at any time?