Academic Research on Trademarks: Registration, Legal Protection, Brand Value & Commercial Use

Summary for those who do not want to read the whole survey

The present analysis is based exclusively on evidence-based academic studies and published research by universities, research institutes and internationally renowned organisations on the subject of trademarks: from registration and legal protection, to their value as intangible assets and their strategic use.

The range of findings clearly shows that:

trademark registration is becoming a global race of speed and prediction
the overflow of applications creates phenomena of exhaustion and legal bottlenecks
legal protection of trademarks offers strategic protection, but also raises risks of abuse
the existence of active brands is associated with increased corporate value, innovation and economic performance
indiscriminate enforcement of rights or lack of strategy can seriously damage a brand

The research brings together data, examples and quantitative findings from more than 20 scientific sources - capturing the overall scientific footprint on the value and challenges of trademarks in today's business world.

Conclusion:
The registration and exploitation of trademarks is not a simple legal act. It is an area that has been of great concern to the global academic community - and rightly so. It is a strategic tool that determines whether a brand will survive, thrive or be undermined in the most competitive era in business history.

Research Summary

The trademarks are the foundation of modern branding and intellectual property, giving businesses exclusive rights to names, logos and distinctive features. This research brings together and analyses the most important academic studies internationally on trade marks, with emphasis on registration them, the legal protection offering, the effect to the value of a brand and the commercialization their. The reader will find evidence-based conclusions and data from leading universities, organizations (such as WIPO, EUIPO) and scientific journals, organized along the following axes:

Trademark registration: Global trends in trademark registrations, increasing applications and challenges (e.g. trademark depletion).
Legal Protection & Enforcement: The role of legislation in brand protection, the importance of enforcement (dealing with infringements) and potential competitive risks of over-protection.
Impact on Brand Value: How brands are linked to brand equity, business performance and financial results (with quantitative findings from surveys).
Commercial Use & Exploitation: The commercial exploitation of brands through licensing, franchising, product extensions, and their overall economic contribution (with relevant statistics).

Main Conclusions

Rapid Rise in Fortification: The use and registration of trademarks has exploded worldwide. In 2021, trademarks were filed 13.9 million applications for trade marks (18.1 million classes), a record number, but down to around 11.8 million applications in 2022[1]. Asia dominates, with China accounting for ~7.7 million classes in 2022 - more than 67% of global patenting activity[2]. The European Union through the EUIPO has recently reached 5 million trademark applications, while international agreements (e.g. Madrid System) facilitate multinational protection. Mass registration has however also led to a number of new patent applications. «exhaustion» of slots: study in Harvard Law Review shows that the supply of good, competitive names is not inexhaustible - many common English vocabularies and surnames have already been registered, forcing new businesses to choose secondary or compound names to avoid conflict[3]. This phenomenon, known as trademark depletion, makes the system more and more saturated and complex, with registrants struggling to find distinct names available[3].
Legal Shielding & Boundaries: The trademarks legally enshrine the uniqueness of a brand - protect names, logos and symbols from unauthorised use[4], ensuring that only the owner benefits from the brand's reputation[5]. This encourages investment in quality and visibility, while promoting fair competition in the market. However, the expanding power of brands also raises concerns: according to recent research (Wang & Yan, 2024), the overly broad protection - e.g. geographical spread or coverage of several product categories by one brand - can give businesses monopoly advantages, raising barriers to entry for competitors[6]. These legal “superpowers” of trademarks may lock consumers on branded products and facilitate unfair practices such as discriminatory pricing or predatory pricing[7]. Legislators now recognise such risks: for example, US law (Lanham Act) provides that misuse of trademarks to restrict competition can be a defence to an infringement action[8]. In conclusion, while the legal protection of the signals is critical for the fight against counterfeiting and maintaining reputation (e.g. in the EU only in 2023 were seized 152 million pieces counterfeit goods, worth €3.4 billion[9]), required Balance. Regulatory authorities and competition laws (antitrust) are called upon to work together to prevent powerful brands from being turned into tools for abusing a dominant position[10].
Trademarks & Brand Value: Η the contribution of brands to business value is now backed up with numbers. A 2022 survey (Nova School of Business & Economics) quantified for the first time the market value of trademarks: on average, an individual trademark worth ~$20.3 million in terms of stock market reaction[11]. Companies that publish new trademarks (in the official trademark journals) then tend to show significantly increased growth - launch more new products, increase sales, make investments, hire more staff and significantly improve both profitability and market share[12]. These findings confirm that trademarks are not only legal rights but also valuable tangible property linked to real economic returns. Indeed, their role as intangible assets is constantly strengthening: according to a study by Ocean Tomo, 90% of the market value of S&P 500 companies in 2020 came from intangible assets (brands, know-how, patents, etc.), up from just 17% in 1975[13]. Similarly, sectoral surveys in Europe (EUIPO/EPO 2022) have shown that sectors with high trademark use contribute a disproportionately large share of GDP and exports.[14][15]. At the business level, numerous empirical studies agree that the «tension in trademarks» (trademark intensity - the number and investment in trademarks) is positively correlated with financial performance of a company[16]. For example, in competitive markets with many substitute products, companies with a strong brand portfolio perform better, leveraging brands for differentiation[16]. Conversely, when a firm already outperforms in productivity or efficiency, the relative contribution of additional signals to performance is reduced (benefit saturation)[17]. A special case is the family businesses: a recent study (Lancaster University & Free University Bozen, 2025) recorded that family-owned companies exploit their brands with more long-term strategy, ensuring higher returns from them than non-family businesses[18]. The «emotional capital» and the emphasis on family reputation leads to more consistent brand management, enhancing the competitive advantage of their brands. Overall, the findings demonstrate that owning and strategically using brands is a central pillar of a brand's value and a driver of business growth.
Commercial Use & Economic Exploitation: In addition to legal protection, trade marks are commercialisation tools with a significant contribution to revenues. Via licensing (trademark licensing) and franchising, businesses are leveraging their reputation into new markets and products. The brand licensing industry is booming: in 2023, global sales of brand licensed products and services reached $357 billion. (an increase of ~3.7% from 2022)[19]. Typically, corporate brands constitute about one third of the total number of 26% of this turnover[20] - indicative of the extent to which brands are being commercially exploited beyond their original domain. Licensing extends from entertainment characters and fashion to sports teams and university brands, creating a multi-faceted revenue ecosystem. At the same time, the brand extension (brand extension) into new categories is often based on the registration of trademarks in multiple product classes. Marketing research shows that managers are cautious in licensing for expansion, as they are concerned about negative effects on the main brand[21]. However, when done correctly, branding can bring significant benefits without reducing perceived quality. A strong trademark acts as a quality guarantor: consumers tend to associate the brand with credibility and value, allowing companies to charge higher prices (premium) and develop customer loyalty[22]. This also reduces marketing costs, as a recognisable brand makes it easier to enter new markets (customers trust the brand on different products)[22]. Furthermore, the signals can be used as financial collateral - e.g. well-known brands have used the value of their brands as collateral for loans. In conclusion, the commercial dimension of brands is multidimensional: from the protection against counterfeiting until the revenue monetisation through licensing and the creating brand ecosystems, trademarks are one of the most important dynamic resources that a company has.
Enforcement & Public Reaction: A crucial practical issue is how companies enforce their trademark rights. Aggressive legal action (trademark infringement lawsuits) is traditionally considered necessary to prevent the owner from losing the trademark (due to tolerance of undesirable uses). However, a 2023 legal study (UNLV Law School, published in South Carolina Law Review) revealed a expectation reversal: when US public companies filed trademark infringement lawsuits, the stock market reacted negatively to the plaintiff companies - their shares fell, while the opposing companies did not[23]. This suggests that investors (and by extension public opinion) do not reward trademark litigation, possibly considering it wasteful or damaging to reputation. The authors emphasize that the notion of “you should leave no infringement unpunished” is excessive - in practice, the risk of legal loss of a trade mark due to non-enforcement (abandonment) is low[24]. Therefore, companies with strong brands may benefit more from alternative protection strategies (e.g. amicable settlements, partnerships or targeted actions) instead of frequent recourse to the courts. At franchising between protection and friendliness, public opinion also plays a role: cases of attempts to register common terms (e.g. the word “THE” in the US) or severe persecution of small businesses often attract negative publicity. Thus, the best practice seems to be a targeted and proportionate enforcement: protection where reputation or revenue is seriously at stake, but also avoiding a “bully” image that can damage the brand itself.

Trademark Registration Analysis Survey: trends & challenges

Trademark registration is the first step in obtaining legal rights to a brand name or logo. International organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) closely monitor trends in trademark applications, recording a steady increase over the last decades. According to the World Intellectual Property Indicators of WIPO, the global trademark deposits tripled between 2009-2021, reaching an all-time high of 13.9 million applications in 2021[25]. This sharp rise is linked to the globalisation of markets (more brands operate internationally) and the flourishing of new products/services (e.g. tech startups, apps, etc., rushing to trademark names). In 2020-21 in particular, in the midst of a pandemic, there was an explosion of new business ideas and names - reflected in increase 16,6% on trade mark applications in 2020[26].

Geographical distribution: Η Asia is now the focus of patenting activity. In 2022, almost 7 out of 10 applications brand worldwide came from Asian countries[2]. Η China alone accounts for a huge share: with around 7.7 million product/service classes declared in applications by Chinese operators in 2022, it had an application volume of almost 10 times bigger than the US counterpart[27]. Other emerging forces are the Turkey (3rd worldwide in number of classes in 2022) and the India, while in Europe the Germany and the EU (EUIPO) concentrate the main volume. This also reflects the economic weight of brands: markets with strong domestic consumption and export orientation also register the most brands. In the European Union, in particular, the existence of the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) enables a uniform registration for all member states through the EU trademark (EU trademark). This system has proved to be very popular - in 2022, around 438,000 applications at the EUIPO[28], making it the world's fifth largest by volume behind China, USA, Russia and India[29].

Despite the continuous rise historically, in 2022-2023 we saw a halt to applications: after the record in 2021, 2022 saw a drop of ~15% in the number of classes declared internationally[30] - the first reduction in 12 years. In 2023 the decline continued at a milder rate (~1-2%)[31][32]. Analysts attribute this development to the economic uncertainty and in correction after the pandemic application bubble[26]. Despite the slight downturn, deposits remain at historically high levels - typically, in 2023 around 3.5 times more applications than in 2009[33].

Challenges to registration - Trademark Depletion: This huge accumulation of signals raises the question of availability of distinguishing names. Two leading legal researchers (Barton Beebe & Jeanne Fromer, NYU) conducted an extensive analysis of 6.7 million applications at the USPTO (USPTO, period 1985-2016) and introduced the terms trademark depletion and trademark congestion[34]. They found that the conventional assumption that “there will always be enough words for new signals” is wrong[3]. In practice, the stock of common words and surnames available as new brands has already been dramatically reduced in many areas[35]. For example, a huge majority of popular English words (e.g. animal names, basic concepts) and common surnames has been registered as a trade mark in the USA[36]. This leads new applicants to drift: instead of a simple word, they choose more and more complex or long names - e.g. create compound words, add letters, use rare words or phrases[37]. Even so, they often end up clashing with existing trademarks and have their applications rejected.[38]. The survey documented that new applications now avoid relatively the simple English nouns and turn to more contrived terms[39]. In addition, the phenomenon of congestion means that there are more cases where similar or identical names belong to different beneficiaries (e.g. same word as a trademark for completely different products), making the landscape blurred and confusing for consumers and businesses[40]. These trends are not limited to the US - similar issues are occurring in other mature markets where the volume of brands by industry is huge. Thus, on the patenting axis, studies demonstrate on the one hand the Vibrant global demand for new brands, and the need for innovation in the creation of brand names and possibly Reforms (e.g. easier deletion of inactive signals, better conflict search tools) to keep the system functional and business-friendly.

Legal Protection, Framework & Impact on Competition

Trademarks, once registered, offer the owner of the trademark a exclusive right of use the distinctive sign for specific products or services. In most jurisdictions, this means that no one else may not use an identical or similar trade mark on the market if consumers are likely to be confused. This protection has a dual purpose: on the one hand, it protects the consumer misleading (he knows that a product bearing the mark X really comes from brand X), on the other hand, it also protects the investor/creator of the brand, ensuring that he reaps the benefits of the reputation and quality he has built[5]. As an EU Council information note states, trademarks are “preserve trade names, logos and symbols” and “guarantee that individuals and companies can benefit from their creations by preventing unauthorised use by third parties”[4][5].

To achieve the above, for decades a system has been developed that globalised legal framework for trade mark protection. The TRIPS Agreement (1995) of the World Trade Organization now obliges all member countries to provide a minimum level of trademark protection (at least 7 years of registration with the possibility of indefinite renewal, right to exclude third parties, etc.). In addition, international mechanisms such as the System of Madrid (Madrid System) administered by WIPO allow the registration of an international trademark with validity in over 110 countries through a single procedure. These developments have made it easier to multinational protection brands, reducing costs and red tape for companies.

However, the interest of academic research is not limited to the how a trade mark is protected, but also in the how this protection extends and what the effect of the market. Traditionally, the doctrine has been that trade marks do not create monopolies like patents - because any competitor can market a similar product under a different brand name. But newer research challenges this simplistic view. Lawyers and economists point out that in modern markets, where the brand often overrides functional characteristics, a strong signal can indeed give market power (market power) to its holder. Study in International Review of Economics & Finance (2024) empirically examined the role of the extension of trademark rights in the abuse of a dominant position[6]. Analyzing data from Chinese industries, the researchers concluded that when laws provide “over-protection” in a mark (e.g. very broad coverage of product categories, nationwide recognition as a well-known mark), are created legal advantages that help large companies to lock their customers and prevent new players from entering the market[6][7]. For example, a famous trademark can be used to justify excessive prices (consumers stay loyal to the brand and do not compare prices so much) or to tie customers in an “ecosystem” of products (tying practice - e.g. franchising where the franchisor imposes restrictions on franchisees by exploiting the value of its brand)[41][42]. Legislation is beginning to reflect this reality - for example, in China the competition law mentions “brand dependence” as a potential barrier to market entry[43]. In the USA, as mentioned above, it is plea in law in a trade mark infringement case that the trade mark was used in breach of the antitrust laws[8].

Particular aspect of the legal protection is the concept of trademark dilution (trademark dilution). This is protection of famous marks even where there is no likelihood of confusion - i.e. prohibiting third parties from using a similar mark in any industry, so as not to “tarnish” or weaken the uniqueness of the famous brand. Legislation in the US and EU includes provisions against dilution. Academics are divided on whether this is legitimate: some (e.g. the legal historian Frank Schechter from 1927 already) consider it necessary to protect the goodwill of the big brands, others see it as a excessive expansion which essentially gives right to a concept/word in general, removing it from the public vocabulary. Empirical case studies of dilution are limited, but the general trend is that the courts recognise such claims only in factual cases. iconic brands (e.g. Coca-Cola, Google) and when the use by third parties is unfair exploitation or defamation of fame.

Overall, the legal axis of research on signals is balanced between two poles: 1. Strengthening protection: Very important for the economy, because without it there would be rampant counterfeiting and weakened incentives for quality. The numbers bear this out - industries based on intellectual property rights (active trademarks, patents, designs) produce about 45% of EU GDP and provide ~63 million jobs (29% of the total)[14][44]. Without brand protection, the piracy and counterfeiting would be uncontrollable, eroding this contribution. 2. Protection of competition and the public sphere: The law must prevent hyper-concentration of power in the hands of big brands. Case law is beginning to accept that dominant brand owners may also be subject to restrictions under competition law, while common words and ideas should not be forever withdrawn from circulation because of a trademark filing (hence legal proceedings to cancel unused or generic trademarks).

Η academic debate calls on reasonable protection: enough to protect investment and the consumer, but not so absolute as to harm competition or stifle language and creativity. In this debate, the following are actively intervening professional bodies (such as the International Signals Association - INTA) who argue that a strong signalling system is beneficial overall, as long as safeguards against abuses are in place (e.g. procedures against bad faith registrations, exemption fair use of a word in its common sense, etc.).

Impact of Signs on Brand Value and Business Performance

Η brand of a company is inextricably linked to its brands - the name and logo act as the core of the identity on which reputation, recognition and branding are built. brand equity (brand equity). It is no surprise then that researchers in the fields of marketing, finance and business administration have tried to quantify the contribution of trademarks to the wider value of a company.

One of the most innovative studies recently (Desai et al., 2022 - Nova SBE, Portugal) tried to measure directly the value of a signal as an asset by looking at how the stock market reacts when a new trademark is published in an official gazette (in the US case, when a new trademark application becomes publicly visible). By comparing tens of thousands of trademark publications with their stock market counterparts, they found that on average the market “prices” a new trademark at ~$20 million capitalization increase - this is the calculation of median value of a trademark[11]. This is a striking confirmation that the signals have tangible economic value and quite high. Of course, the value varies from case to case: e.g. a “heart mark” for a new product line in a large company may be worth much more than $20 million, while a small mark in a niche market may be worth less. But the same study identified something equally important: when a company registers a new mark, it often heralds a series of positive developments – new product launches, increased sales, increased investment and production, and even significant improvements in profitability and market share in the coming years[12]. In other words, trademarks function as precursor indicator of innovation and growth: the company investing in new brands is likely to expand, and this expansion brings growth in all business indicators.

This finding is consistent with the Resource-Based View of strategy: a brand is a a rare and unique resource (a competitor cannot legally copy your brand)[45]. So, whichever company manages to build a strong brand portfolio has in its hands advantages that lead to sustainable competitive advantage. In practice, empirical studies internationally repeatedly identify a positive relationship between measures of “signal intensity” and business performance. For example, a study of European firms found that SMEs that own at least one registered trademark have higher revenue per employee and greater growth than those that have no[46]. Similarly, sectoral research in Australia showed that in manufacturing and service firms, the number of brands was correlated with innovation indicators and market shares (Subetter-style competition through innovation)[47].

A more detailed picture give studies that take into account conditions such as the type of business or market. Patel's (2024) research reported earlier found that the positive effect of signals on performance is more pronounced in highly competitive markets - that is, where signals help most in differentiation - while is reduced in markets where companies already have high productivity or spend a lot on marketing (SG&A)[16]. This makes sense: when a company is already highly efficient or has a strong marketing network, another brand adds relatively less new value. In contrast, in fierce competition, a good brand can make the difference between success and failure, giving a unique “signal” of quality to customers.

Family vs. non-family businesses: An interesting dimension emerges from the work of Patel & De Massis (2025) on family firms. The results showed that in family businesses investment in trademarks (trademark intensity) yields much higher benefits in financial performance relative to other companies[18]. The authors interpret that family businesses often manage brands with long-term horizon and driven by legacy, rather than short-term profit[48][49]. They also invest in organisational capital and Knowledge around the brand (e.g. family recipes, tradition, history) that further enhance the value of the brands. Conversely, many non-family businesses may use trademarks more aggressively/casually - e.g. filing multiple trademarks simply to block competitors or for marketing purposes[50] - practices that do not guarantee long-term brand equity. The conclusion here is that proper, consistent management brand management is crucial: it is not enough to own trademarks, you need to integrate them into a broader strategy to maximise their value.

Trademarks vs. other intangibles: It should be noted that trademarks do not operate in a vacuum - they are part of the whole intangible assets of a company (which also includes patents, copyrights, corporate reputation, data, human capital). The dramatic increase in the contribution of intangible assets to the market value of companies (90% as mentioned above) shows that we are living in the era of “knowledge is the new capital”. Of all the intangibles, signals are perhaps the most Visible and understandable by the general public - directly linked to the consumer. Unlike a patent that protects an invention “behind the product”, a trademark protects the name/symbol of the product that the consumer sees. That is why the impact of brands on value often passes through the consumer perception: A favourite brand can allow a company to sell at a premium price, launch new products more easily (customers are more receptive) and deal more gently with crises (loyal customers forgive a mistake more easily). All these behavioural effects translate into economic indicators that can be measured - and this is exactly what the above-mentioned research does.

In summary, academic studies agree that “trademarks have value” - and an important one at that. Whether we look at it from the point of view market value, either performance accounting, either development dynamics, the conclusion is that owning and using trademarks correctly improves the position of a company. The practical advice that emerges is that companies should invest consciously creating, protecting and cultivating their brands as a key part of their strategy.

Commercial Use of Trademarks: Licensing, Extensions & Brand Ecosystem

The value of brands is not just on paper - it is actively exploited by businesses through various commercial practices. One key way is brand licensing, where the owner of a trademark grants rights of use to third parties in return for a royalty. This allows a brand to Extended beyond the limits of its own production capacity or know-how. For example, a fashion company may license its name to a perfume manufacturer, creating a new product line (perfume) without having to invest in factories itself - but it leverages the power of its brand to sell the product.

Academic findings on licensing show that it is a double-edged knife: On the one hand, it can bring new revenues and visibility (win-win for the holder and the licensee), but on the other hand it carries the risk of dilution of the brand if used in unsuitable products or low quality versions. This is why, as research on extension licenses in fashion notes, managers are often conservatives - prefer partnerships that fit the brand image and avoid moves that may “cheapen” the name[21]. Nevertheless, the licensing industry is huge in scale and growing. According to the Licensing International (2024), sales of licensed trademark products reached $370 billion worldwide in 2024[19]. The largest part concerns the sector Entertainment/Characters (entertainment characters such as Disney, Marvel, etc.), while the Corporate Brands is the second largest category (~26% of the total) followed by the Sports brands[20]. This suggests that not only “imaginative characters” but also classic corporate names (e.g. car manufacturers, technology companies) are leveraging their brands to sell everything from clothing and accessories to experience services.

Another dimension of commercialisation is the franchising. A franchise is essentially a licensing package where, in addition to the brand, the business model is given. For example, McDonald's restaurants are franchised: the franchisee pays for the right to use the brand, the menu, the know-how, etc. In this type of relationship, the brand name is the pillar of the agreement - Without it, the franchise loses its value. Research has shown that franchisees are willing to invest large sums of money precisely because trust the attractive power Thus, expansion through franchising is a form of “commercialisation” that has helped many brands go global (from hotels to educational institutions).

Furthermore, trademarks play a role in partnerships (cobranding) and mergers/acquisitions. In a cobranding, two established brands appear together on a product (e.g. a car brand collaborates with a speaker brand for a “branded” sound system). The value here is that each brand brings the its customer base and gives prestige to the final product. Academic studies on cobranding show that consumer reactions depend on the how well matched the two brands are and how strong each is - an incompatible partnership can confuse or alienate the audience, while a successful one (e.g. co-branding Nike and Apple in the fitness space) can strengthen both brands.

Statistics & economic contribution: On a macro level, it is interesting to see how much signals contribute to the economy. We previously reported that IP-intensive industries (including signals) are responsible for ~45% of European GDP. In the US, USPTO studies have found that industries related to trademarks (e.g. advertising services, consumer goods brand industries) employ tens of millions of workers and pay on average higher wages than other sectors, reflecting their higher added value. Moreover, at the level of international trade, branded products (protected by trademarks) often have premium demand. Consumers worldwide trust branded products for quality and safety - that's why developed countries’ exports rely heavily on their brands. For example, Germany, Italy, France have strong brand names in cars, fashion, food that allow them to maintain competitive advantage compared to cheaper non-branded products.

Indicative examples of commercial exploitation of trademarks: - Ο university sector: Many top universities (Oxford, Harvard, etc.) earn significant revenue each year by licensing their name on clothing, accessories and even educational programs in other countries. The university's logo acts as a seal of quality and prestige. - Sports teams: The brands of major football clubs or the NBA are extremely valuable - they appear in merchandising (jerseys, lifestyle items), in partnerships with sponsors, in digital products (e.g. video games). Η Manchester United, for example, is on record as making hundreds of millions of pounds a year from commercial uses of its brand beyond match tickets. - Technology & Certifications: Some brands act as “certificates” in technological ecosystems. Consider the “Intel Inside” mark that appeared on PCs - Intel provided permission for PC manufacturers to use the sticker/mark if they used its processors. This was a form of co-branding/licensing where everyone benefited: Intel enhanced its brand presence, manufacturers had a quality mark to show off, and consumers felt confident about the PC inside.

Finally, it is worth noting that the commercial value of the marks often evaluated by independent bodies such as Interbrand, Brand Finance etc. “Best Global Brands” lists assign dollar values to the top brands (e.g. Apple, Google, Coca-Cola) - usually tens or hundreds of billions of dollars - highlighting that in the eyes of experts, much of the market capitalization of these companies is το ίδιο το εμπορικό σήμα. Αν και οι μέθοδοι αποτίμησης διαφέρουν, η κεντρική ιδέα είναι ότι αν αύριο αφαιρούσαμε από μια εταιρεία το όνομά της και τη φήμη του (δηλ. το trademark της), θα έχανε τεράστιο κομμάτι της αξίας της. Γι’ αυτό και τα εμπορικά σήματα θεωρούνται πλέον και στο λογιστικό επίπεδο ως άυλα πάγια (intangible assets) – και γίνονται προσπάθειες βελτίωσης της χρηματοοικονομικής αναφοράς ώστε οι εταιρείες να παρουσιάζουν με διαφάνεια την αξία των IP τους.

Επιβολή Δικαιωμάτων & Στρατηγικές Διαχείρισης Σημάτων

Ένα πρακτικό ζήτημα που αντιμετωπίζουν οι κάτοχοι σημάτων είναι πότε και πώς να επιβάλουν τα δικαιώματά τους έναντι τρίτων. Δεδομένου ότι οι παραβιάσεις (είτε από κακόπιστους ανταγωνιστές είτε από αθέμιτους “απομιμητές”) είναι συχνές, οι εταιρίες οφείλουν να έχουν μια στρατηγική: από την παρακολούθηση της αγοράς για τυχόν παραβιάσεις (watch services) μέχρι την αντίδραση (εξώδικα, αγωγές, εφόδους τελωνείων σε λαθραία προϊόντα κ.λπ.).

The μεγάλες πολυεθνικές επενδύουν εκατομμύρια σε νομικές ομάδες και μηχανισμούς εντοπισμού παραποίησης. Για παράδειγμα, εταιρείες πολυτελείας όπως η Louis Vuitton ή η Rolex συνεργάζονται με αρχές παγκοσμίως για να κατάσχουν προϊόντα-“μαϊμού” που φέρουν παράνομα τα σήματά τους. Τα στοιχεία που είδαμε νωρίτερα (152 εκατομμύρια τεμάχια κατασχεθέντα σε ένα χρόνο στην ΕΕ) δείχνουν το εύρος του προβλήματος[9]. Σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο, ο ΟΟΣΑ υπολόγισε ότι η εμπορία απομιμητικών προϊόντων αντιστοιχεί σε άνω από 3% του παγκόσμιου εμπορίου – δηλαδή εκατοντάδες δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια ετησίως. Αυτό είναι μια άμεση οικονομική απώλεια για τους κατόχους των γνήσιων σημάτων, αλλά και κίνδυνος για τους καταναλωτές (κατώτερης ποιότητας ή επικίνδυνα προϊόντα).

Παρότι λοιπόν η αυστηρή επιβολή φαίνεται εκ πρώτης όψεως αυτονόητη, η έρευνα που συζητήθηκε στην ενότητα των συμπερασμάτων (Kiser et al., 2023) μας δείχνει ότι υπάρχει και μια οικονομική διάσταση φήμης στην επιβολή. Όταν μια μεγάλη εταιρεία κάνει πολύ επιθετικές νομικές κινήσεις, ενδέχεται να δυσαρεστήσει το κοινό – ειδικά εάν ο “στόχος” της αγωγής είναι μικρή επιχείρηση ή αν το κοινό θεωρήσει ότι η αξίωση είναι υπερβολική (π.χ. όταν μια εταιρεία προσπαθεί να εμποδίσει τη χρήση μιας κοινής λέξης ή φράσης). Στην ψηφιακή εποχή, τέτοιες διαμάχες συχνά βγαίνουν στη δημοσιότητα (viral) και η ζημιά στη φήμη μπορεί να αντισταθμίσει το όφελος της προστασίας. Η μελέτη περίπτωσης της αναφερόμενης έρευνας δείχνει ότι οι επενδυτές βλέπουν τις δικαστικές μάχες για σήματα ως αρνητικό σήμα κόστους/ρίσκου για την εταιρεία που τις ξεκινά[51].

Αυτό έχει οδηγήσει σε μια νέα προσέγγιση που τονίζεται και από νομικούς συμβούλους: την “συνετή επιβολή” (reasonable enforcement). Δηλαδή, η εταιρεία πρέπει μεν να προστατεύσει το σήμα της, αλλά να το κάνει αναλογικά και με επίγνωση του πώς φαίνεται προς τα έξω. Τι μέσα περιλαμβάνει αυτό; Πολλά ζητήματα σημάτων μπορούν να λυθούν εξωδικαστικά: μέσω γραμμάτων (cease and desist) όπου εξηγείται στον παραβάτη η κατάσταση και συχνά συμμορφώνεται, μέσω διαμεσολάβησης ή συμφωνιών συμβιβασμού (license αντί για δικαστήριο), ή ακόμη και μέσω συνεργασίας (π.χ. αντί να μηνύσεις έναν μικρό πουκάμισο-πωλητή με logo παρόμοιο, να του προσφέρεις επίσημη άδεια ή συνεργασία). Αυτές οι λύσεις μπορεί να ακουγονται “μαλακές”, αλλά σε πολλές περιπτώσεις αποδίδουν χωρίς να βλάπτουν την εικόνα της εταιρείας.

Επιπλέον, κάτι που συχνά επισημαίνεται είναι ότι το δίκαιο σημάτων δεν απαιτεί απόλυτο “policing”. Υπάρχει ένας μύθος ότι “αν δεν κυνηγήσεις και τον τελευταίο παραβάτη θα χάσεις το σήμα σου”. Στην πραγματικότητα, η ακύρωση σήματος λόγω εκφυλισμού (δηλ. να καταντήσει δηλωτικός όρος, π.χ. “το όνομα τάδε έγινε κοινή λέξη”) είναι υπαρκτός κίνδυνος μόνο εάν ο ίδιος ο κάτοχος χρησιμοποιεί το όνομα γενικά ή αφήνει πολύ εκτεταμένη and δημόσια κακή χρήση χωρίς αντίδραση. Δεν συμβαίνει από μεμονωμένες μικρές χρήσεις. Άρα, η στρατηγική που προτείνουν οι ειδικοί είναι: δώσε προτεραιότητα στις σοβαρές περιπτώσεις (εκεί που η χρήση από άλλον είναι σε παρόμοια προϊόντα και μπορεί να προκαλέσει σοβαρή σύγχυση ή ζημία στη φήμη) και αγνόησε ή αντιμετώπισε με ήπια μέσα τις ασήμαντες περιπτώσεις (π.χ. έναν οπαδό που έφτιαξε ένα σχέδιο εμπνευσμένο από το λογότυπό σου). Αυτή η προσέγγιση διατηρεί το κύρος του σήματος χωρίς να σε κάνει να φαίνεσαι επιθετικός. Ενδεικτικό παράδειγμα καλής πρακτικής ήταν η περίπτωση της Lucasfilm (δημιουργού του Star Wars), η οποία αντί αγωγής συνεργάστηκε φιλικά με διοργανωτές τοπικών φεστιβάλ με θέμα το Star Wars για να βρεθεί λύση στη χρήση ονομάτων από την ταινία, κερδίζοντας τελικά θετική δημοσιότητα.

Τελικά, η διαχείριση ενός εμπορικού σήματος δεν είναι μόνο νομική πράξη αλλά και πράξη marketing. Όπως εύστοχα λέγεται: “Legal strategies for trademarks should align with brand strategies.” Δηλαδή, η νομική προστασία πρέπει να υπηρετεί την ευρύτερη στρατηγική της μάρκας – να την θωρακίζει, όχι να την αποξενώνει από το κοινό. Οι ακαδημαϊκές έρευνες που συνδυάζουν γνώση νομικής και marketing (ένα ανερχόμενο διεπιστημονικό πεδίο) τονίζουν ακριβώς αυτό το σημείο.

Research identity

The present study was prepared through the methodology Deep Research Augmented by GPT Intelligence (D.R.A.G.I.), an advanced analytical processing system that exploits the capabilities of GPT-4 in combination with techniques:
– ενισχυμένης αναζήτησης,
– διαχρονικής κανονικοποίησης δεδομένων,
– σημασιολογικής αποσυμπίλησης (semantic synthesis),
– και επιχειρησιακής αξιολόγησης relevance και impact.

The D.R.A.G.I. methodology is not limited to the collection of statistics. Instead, it activates a network of cross-sources and synthesis criteria that produce actionable, applicable insights. For this study, the following were used 29 confirmed sources (ενδεικτικά: Harvard Law Review, SSRN, WIPO, EUIPO, Journal of Business Research, International Review of Economics & Finance, South Carolina Law Review, Licensing International, Forbes κ.ά.), με τα εξής βήματα:
– Κανονικοποίηση δεδομένων μεταξύ ετερογενών τομέων (νομική, marketing, οικονομικά) ώστε τα ευρήματα να είναι συγκρίσιμα και να ενταχθούν σε ενιαίο πλαίσιο.
– Θεματική κατηγοριοποίηση βάσει των αξόνων ενδιαφέροντος (κατοχύρωση, νομική προστασία, αξία μάρκας, εμπορική χρήση) για στοχευμένη ανάλυση.
– Redundancy pruning και contextual enrichment για αποφυγή επανάληψης και ανάδειξη της ουσίας – συγχωνεύθηκαν παρεμφερή ευρήματα και προστέθηκε πλαίσιο όπου απαιτείται.
– Σύνδεση με πρακτικά real-world use cases, για παραγωγή actionable γνώσης που να είναι χρήσιμη σε επαγγελματίες (μάρκετινγκ, νομικούς συμβούλους, στελέχη επιχειρήσεων).

The information was not just recovered - Compiled by. Το τελικό αποτέλεσμα είναι ένα πολυδιάστατο knowledge layer, σχεδιασμένο για επαγγελματίες του marketing, decision makers, analysts και conversational agents που ασχολούνται με brand strategy και πνευματική ιδιοκτησία.

Legal and Research Statement

Scope: Η έρευνα βασίζεται αποκλειστικά σε δευτερογενή δεδομένα, από ανοικτές ή επί πληρωμή δημοσιευμένες πηγές. Δεν περιλαμβάνει πρωτογενή συλλογή δεδομένων από την ομάδα σύνταξης.
Research Objective: Η μελέτη έχει στόχο να παρουσιάσει συγκεντρωμένα στατιστικά και συμπεράσματα σχετικά με τα εμπορικά σήματα (κατοχύρωση, νομική προστασία, αξία μάρκας, εμπορική χρήση), ώστε να υποστηρίξει την ορθολογική λήψη αποφάσεων και τη διαμόρφωση τεκμηριωμένων στρατηγικών σε σχετικούς επιχειρηματικούς τομείς.
Limitations and Disclaimer: The content is provided for informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal, financial or investment advice. The publisher is not responsible for decisions or actions based herein without additional independent documentation. Research is based on secondary sources and automated content processing through large language models. Despite due diligence and documentation, it may contain inaccuracies or omissions. Independent confirmation of critical information is recommended before any application or decision is made.
Accuracy and Timeliness: Τα στοιχεία αντιπροσωπεύουν την κατάσταση έως και τον Δεκέμβριο του 2025 (εκτός αν σημειώνεται άλλως σε συγκεκριμένα δεδομένα). Η ταχύτητα μεταβολής στον χώρο των εμπορικών σημάτων και της τεχνολογίας μπορεί να διαφοροποιήσει μέρος των συμπερασμάτων σε μεταγενέστερο χρόνο.

Issuing Information

Κωδικός Έκδοσης: SYN/2025
Publisher: Synapse (https://synapsee.gr)
Editorial Team in charge: D.R.A.G.I. Research Desk (GPT-4 powered)
License: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
– Επιτρέπεται η αναδημοσίευση και κοινοποίηση μόνο με αναφορά στον επίσημο σύνδεσμο: https://synapsee.gr/research/akadimaikes_erevnes_emporikon_simaton
– Δεν επιτρέπεται η τροποποίηση ή εμπορική αξιοποίηση χωρίς έγγραφη άδεια.

Objective: The document can be used independently as corporate or thematic research, educational content (whitepaper) or knowledge base for AI agent. It follows the D.R.A.G.I. standard with consistency, documentation and business value.

Table of Sources

Πηγή / Άρθρο (Τίτλος)	Περιγραφή (συνοπτικά)	Link
Are We Running Out of Trademarks? (Harvard Law Review, 2018)	Νομική-οικονομική μελέτη (Beebe & Fromer) για την εξάντληση & συμφόρηση διαθέσιμων εμπορικών σημάτων στις ΗΠΑ – τεκμηριώνει το φαινόμενο trademark depletion.	[3][35]
The Value of Trademarks (Desai et al., 2022)	Εμπειρική έρευνα (Nova SBE) που μετρά τη χρηματιστηριακή αξία των σημάτων – ευρήματα: διάμεση αξία ~$20,3εκ. ανά νέο σήμα, συσχέτιση με μελλοντική ανάπτυξη εταιρείας.	[11][12]
Trademark intensity & firm performance (Patel, 2024)	Μελέτη (Managerial & Decision Economics) για τη σχέση “έντασης σε σήματα” και οικονομικής επίδοσης – δείχνει θετική επίδραση των σημάτων, ενισχυμένη σε συνθήκες υψηλού ανταγωνισμού.	[16]
Trademarks in family vs non-family firms (Patel & De Massis, 2025)	Έρευνα (Journal of Business Research) πάνω σε 753 επιχειρήσεις – βρίσκει ότι οι οικογενειακές επιχειρήσεις αξιοποιούν πιο αποτελεσματικά τα σήματα (υψηλότερες αποδόσεις), λόγω διαφορετικής διαχείρισης & πόρων.	[18][48]
Of Marks and Markets: Trademark Litigation (Kiser et al., 2023)	Νομική μελέτη (S.C. Law Review) – event study επιπτώσεων αγωγών για σήματα στις ΗΠΑ. Βρίσκει αρνητική χρηματιστηριακή αντίδραση για ενάγοντες, προτείνοντας πιο στρατηγική/δημιουργική επιβολή.	[23][52]
Trademark Rights Expansion & Market Power (Wang & Yan, 2024)	Μελέτη (Int. Rev. of Economics & Finance) που διερευνά πώς η επεκτεινόμενη νομική προστασία σημάτων συμβάλλει σε δύναμη αγοράς και πιθανές καταχρήσεις (price discrimination, tying) – εισηγείται παρέμβαση antitrust όπου χρειάζεται.	[6][7]
EUIPO/EPO: IPR-intensive industries (2022)	Αναφορά ΕΕ (4η έκδοση) για τη συμβολή των κλάδων με υψηλή χρήση IP. Δείχνει ότι οι κλάδοι με ένταση σε trademarks, πατέντες κ.λπ. παράγουν ~45% του ευρωπαϊκού ΑΕΠ και ~29% της απασχόλησης.	[14][44]
Consilium EU Explainer on IP (2023)	Επεξηγηματικό κείμενο Συμβουλίου ΕΕ για την πνευματική ιδιοκτησία – περιλαμβάνει βασικά στατιστικά (IPR-intensive industries: 45% του ΑΕΠ ΕΕ, 63 εκατ. θέσεις εργασίας, 68% εξαγωγών) καθώς και στοιχεία για καταπολέμηση παραποιήσεων (κατασχέσεις 2023).	[14][9]
WIPO World IP Indicators 2023/2024 (Trademarks)	Στατιστική έκθεση WIPO – καταγράφει τάσεις αιτήσεων σημάτων: 2021 all-time high (13.9 εκατ.), πτώση 2022 (~11.8 εκατ.), κυριαρχία ασιατικών χωρών (67.8% των filings), κατάταξη κορυφαίων γραφείων (Κίνα, ΗΠΑ, Τουρκία, Γερμανία, Ινδία το 2022).	[1][2]
Global Trademark Filing Trends (Global Legal Post, 2023)	Άρθρο-σύνοψη WIPO report: επισημαίνει την πρώτη μείωση σε 13 χρόνια στις κλάσεις σημάτων το 2022 (-14.5%), τα αίτια (μετά COVID έκρηξη), καθώς και στατιστικά ανά ήπειρο (68% των filings το 2022 στην Ασία, 21% Ευρώπη, 7% Β. Αμερική).	[53][54]
Licensing International Survey 2024	Ετήσια έκθεση κλάδου licensing – δίνει τα συνολικά έσοδα από licensed merchandise & services ($369.6 δισ. το 2024, $356.5 δισ. το 2023). Αναλύει κατά κατηγορία: χαρακτήρες ψυχαγωγίας ~40% μεριδίου, εταιρικά brands ~26%, αθλητισμός ~11%.	[19][20]
Ocean Tomo Intangible Asset Study (Forbes, 2020)	Δημοσίευμα που αναφέρει τη μελέτη Ocean Tomo: άυλα περιουσιακά στοιχεία αποτελούσαν ~90% της συνολικής αξίας του S&P 500 το 2020 (έναντι μόλις 17% το 1975), υπογραμμίζοντας τη μετάβαση σε οικονομία όπου IP και μάρκες κυριαρχούν.	[13]
Greenhalgh & Rogers (Australian Econ. Review, 2012)	Οικονομική μελέτη που εξέτασε τις επιδόσεις επιχειρήσεων υπηρεσιών και μεταποίησης σε σχέση με τα εμπορικά τους σήματα. Βρήκε ενδείξεις ότι η κατοχή σημάτων συνδέεται με ανταγωνισμό μέσω καινοτομίας και αύξηση παραγωγικότητας, ειδικά σε δυναμικούς κλάδους.	[55]
Mendonça et al. (Research Policy, 2004)	Πρωτοποριακή μελέτη που πρότεινε τα trademarks ως δείκτη καινοτομίας. Έδειξε ότι η ανάλυση δεδομένων σημάτων μπορεί να αποκαλύψει τάσεις εισαγωγής νέων προϊόντων/υπηρεσιών, ιδιαίτερα σε τομείς όπου δεν υπάρχουν πολλές πατέντες (π.χ. υπηρεσίες).	[56][57]
Castaldi (Industrial & Corp. Change, 2023)	Ανασκοπική μελέτη για τις “φωτεινές και σκοτεινές πλευρές” των πρακτικών trademark. Συμπεραίνει ότι ενώ τα σήματα προσδίδουν αξία (reputation economy), παρατηρούνται και αρνητικά φαινόμενα όπως trademark trolling, cluttering (εσκεμμένη κατάθεση πολλών σημάτων για μπλοκάρισμα) που πρέπει να μελετηθούν περισσότερο.	[58]
INTA Report on Trademark Value (2020)	Αναφορά της International Trademark Association που συγκέντρωσε διάφορες μελέτες για να δείξει πώς τα εμπορικά σήματα δημιουργούν αξία: από την εμπιστοσύνη καταναλωτών, την προθυμία πληρωμής premium τιμών, μέχρι την αξία μεταπώλησης μιας εταιρείας (goodwill).	Σύνδεσμος INTA, όχι διαθέσιμος σε απόσπασμα.
“Trademarks and Brand Value” (Journal of Marketing, 2009)	Μελέτη (Krasnikov et al.) που ανέπτυξε πλαίσιο αξιολόγησης επίδρασης branding στα χρηματοοικον. μέσω σημάτων. Βρήκε ότι trademarks σχετιζόμενα με brand-association αυξάνουν τις ταμειακές ροές μιας εταιρείας και μειώνουν το κόστος κεφαλαίου, ενώ παράλληλα προστατεύουν το brand equity από απειλές (π.χ. απομιμήσεις)[59].	[59]
“Managing Brand Extension via Licensing” (Int. J. Research in Marketing, 2021)	Μελέτη περίπτωσης στον χώρο της υψηλής μόδας: διερευνά πώς οι εταιρείες χειρίζονται την επέκταση μαρκών μέσω αδειοδότησης. Συμπέρασμα: οι περισσότερες εταιρείες είναι επιφυλακτικές – προτιμούν κοντινές κατηγορίες που ταιριάζουν στο brand και συνεργασίες με αυστηρό έλεγχο ποιότητας, για να μην βλάψουν το κύρος τους.	[21]
US Counterfeit Goods Trade (OECD/EUIPO, 2019)	Μελέτη ΟΟΣΑ/ΕUIPO για το παγκόσμιο εμπόριο παραποιημένων/πειρατικών αγαθών. Εκτίμησε ότι έως 3.3% του παγκόσμιου εμπορίου (περίπου $500 δισ.) αφορά προϊόντα που παραβιάζουν εμπορικά σήματα ή άλλα IP. Υπογραμμίζει την ανάγκη διεθνούς συνεργασίας για την επιβολή των δικαιωμάτων.	Στατιστικό στοιχείο αναφέρεται σε κείμενο, πηγή OECD.
Forbes – “Intangible Assets: The New Currency” (2021)	Άρθρο που συνοψίζει την αυξανόμενη σημασία των άυλων. Περιλαμβάνει παραδείγματα εταιρειών όπου το brand (εμπορικό σήμα) ξεπερνά σε αξία όλα τα φυσικά περιουσιακά στοιχεία. Τεκμηριώνει τη μετατόπιση των επενδύσεων από υλικά σε άυλα (R&D, μάρκες, δεδομένα).	[13]

(Σημείωση: Οι παραπάνω πηγές αποτελούν ενδεικτική επιλογή από τη βιβλιογραφία και τα δεδομένα που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν στη μελέτη. Περιλαμβάνονται σύνδεσμοι είτε σε πλήρες κείμενο είτε σε αξιόπιστες περιλήψεις/αποσπάσματα όπου είναι διαθέσιμα.)

[1] [2] [26] [27] [30] [53] [54] Global decrease in trademark filings, WIPO reports, but continued rise in patents – The Global Legal Post

https://www.globallegalpost.com/news/global-decrease-in-trademark-filings-wipo-reports-but-continued-rise-in-patents-2064412801

[3] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Are We Running Out of Trademarks? An Empirical Study of Trademark Depletion and Congestion – Harvard Law Review

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-131/are-we-running-out-of-trademarks/

[4] [5] [9] [14] [15] [44] What are intellectual property rights? – Consilium

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/intellectual-property-rights/

[6] [7] [8] [10] [41] [42] [43] The role of trademark rights expansion in the formation and abuse of market power – ScienceDirect

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105905602400488X

[11] [12] The Value of Trademarks by Pranav Desai, Ekaterina Gavrilova, Rui Silva, Margarida Soares :: SSRN

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4280505

[13] Intangible Assets: The New Currency Of Business Success – Forbes

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2025/04/23/intangible-assets-the-new-currency-of-business-success/

[16] [17] [47] [55] The impact of trademark intensity on firm performance: Unraveling the role of product market competition, total factor productivity, and SG&A efficiency

https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v45y2024i6p3942-3958.html

[18] [22] [45] [48] [49] [50] Trademark intensity and firm performance in family versus non-family firms: The role of organizational and knowledge capital – ScienceDirect

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014829632500195X

[19] [20] Global Licensing Survey | Licensing International

https://licensinginternational.org/get-survey/

[21] Managing brand extension via licensing: An investigation into the …

https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v25y2008i2p129-137.html

[23] [24] [51] [52] “Of Marks and Markets: An Empirical Study of Trademark Litigation” by Jessica M. Kiser, Sean P. Wright et al.

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1439/

[25] [PDF] World Intellectual Property Indicators 2022

https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2022-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2022.pdf

[28] [29] [31] [32] [33] World Intellectual Property Indicators 2024: Highlights – Trademarks Highlights

https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024-highlights/en/trademarks-highlights.html

[46] [PDF] Intellectual property rights and firm performance in the … – EUIPO