Canadian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Baseline Awareness of Intellectual Property

Branch and directorate:

Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), Information Branch, Outreach Program.

The Outreach Program delivers information and services about intellectual property (IP) to specific target groups. The Program strives to raise awareness, knowledge and effective use of the IP system and IP information among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the educational sector across Canada.

Rationale:

CIPO's Outreach Program needed to develop and implement a baseline measure to help the organization gauge overall awareness, knowledge and use of IP by Canadian SMEs, its primary target group, while evaluating the Outreach Program's effectiveness over time.

Anticipated outcomes/benefits:

The survey results show the level of awareness, knowledge and use of the IP system and IP information by SMEs — by type (patents, trade-marks, copyrights, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies), by geographical regions, by industrial sectors and by size of business. The survey results will allow benchmarking with other IP offices engaged in outreach activities. This was achieved, to the greatest extent possible, through the use of common terms and the wording of the questions in the survey questionnaire.

Research Information:

On behalf of CIPO, the Strategic Counsel conducted 2,106 telephone surveys, of approximately 15 minutes in duration, with a random sampling of Canadian-based SMEs. Overall survey results are accurate within +/-2.14 percentage points 19 times out of 20, or at a 95% confidence level. The sample was stratified by region and industry sector classification as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes at the two-digit level. For further information regarding the NAICS visit www.statcan.ca

Contracting:

Research Firm: Gregg, Kelly, Sullivan & Woolstencroft: The Strategic Counsel
Contract #: U8020-061773/001/CY
Contract issued by: PWGSC
Contract value: $90,500.00.

Canadian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Baseline Awareness of Intellectual Property — March 2007

Canadian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Baseline Awareness of Intellectual Property—March 2007

PDF Version
(382 KB, 92 pages)

POR number: 230-06
Contract number: U8020-061773
Contract award date: November 6, 2006

Prepared for: Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)
Contact: Industry Canada
Communications and Marketing Branch
Room 442D, 235 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5
Telephone: 343-291-3578
Fax: 613-952-5162
Email: janis.camelon@canada.ca

Prepared by:
Gregg, Kelly, Sullivan & Woolstencroft:
The Strategic Counsel
www.thestrategiccounsel.com

21 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1L9
Telephone: 416-975-4465
Fax: 416-975-1883

60 George Street, Suite 205
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 1J4
Telephone: 613-236-0296
Fax: 613-236-1290

Baseline Awareness of IP
Appendix A—Questionnaire
Appendix B—Call Dispositions

I. Baseline Awareness of IP

1. Executive Summary

General Familiarity with Intellectual Property Protection and CIPO

Intellectual property concerns are not top priorities for senior decision makers when thinking about the most important issues currently facing their companies. In fact, the term "Intellectual Property" is only "very" or "somewhat" familiar (saying 4-10 on a scale from 0-10, with 10 being very familiar) to about two-thirds (57%) of those surveyed. The remainder (42%) rated themselves as not familiar (saying 0-3 on a scale from 0-10, with being not at all familiar) with the term IP.
Perhaps not surprisingly therefore, when asked to name any formal methods or types of intellectual property protection, more than three-in-five senior decision makers (62%) were unable to do so. Copyright protection led the list of unprompted responses, identified by one-in-five (19%), followed by patent protection (16%) and trademark protection (10%). Industrial design protection and trade secrets were each referred to by only one percent of respondents.
Four-out-of-five senior decision makers (81%) could not name an organization in Canada that is responsible for granting and/or registering IP protection. The Federal Government was identified by 6% of respondents, while the same proportion cited either of the Patent Office (4%), Trademark Office (1%), or the Copyright Office (1%). Only 1% of business leaders mentioned the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO).
When specifically asked about their familiarity with the CIPO and its products and services, just 3% of respondents rated themselves as being familiar with the organization. The vast majority of those surveyed, four-in-five (89%), say they are unfamiliar with CIPO.
Mirroring familiarity with the term "Intellectual Property", just over one-in-three business leaders reported that they are very or somewhat familiar with the three main types of IP protection – copyrights (40%), trademarks (39%) and patents (35%). While one-in-six state they are familiar with trade secrets (17%) and industrial designs (14%), only two-in-five (approximately 40%) are not familiar with these forms of IP protection.

IP Behaviours and Attitudes

One-third (32%) of senior business decision makers surveyed considered their company to have IP assets. Among this group, licence agreements (42%), trademarks (39%), and copyrights (32%) are the top three methods used to protect these assets. Trade secrets, patents, and industrial designs were other methods commonly used.
One-quarter (26%) of companies with IP assets choose not to protect them. Of this group, over one-third (36%) chose not to register their IP assets because they did not think it was necessary, and a further 15% said they just have not gotten around to it. Other common reasons cited were the high cost (9%) and the lack of value (7%). One-in-five (20%) cited issues around lack of knowledge such as not knowing that you could register your intellectual property or where to go and how to do it.
When asked their view on significant impediments to filing for intellectual property protection for copyrights (32%), trademarks (31%), patents (29%), and industrial designs (28%), about three-in-ten feel there are not any, and half are unable to say. Cost is the impediment most frequently cited, although by only one-in-ten.
Use of free Internet databases offered by various Intellectual Property Offices as a source of information for product development and/or competition monitoring is extremely limited with just one-in-twenty accessing any patent, copyright, trademark and industrial design databases.
Concern over the violation or infringement of intellectual property rights is not prevalent among the senior decision makers surveyed with only one-in-five (20%) reporting this as a significant issue for their business. Among this group, copyright (34%) and trademark (25%) violations are the primary concerns while industrial design (15%) and patent (14%) infringements are important for about one-in-seven. Among this same group, one-quarter (27%) report their company has been affected by an IP violation.

Information Sources for IP

Senior decision makers appear to be getting their knowledge about protection for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and industrial designs from the same five top sources for each type of intellectual property. School, newspapers and magazines, and personal as well as work experience are cited most frequently. Radio and television as well as business associations round out the top five. Combining the print and broadcasts media elevates media to the top position as the number one source of IP information (23%) among those surveyed. Media is closely followed by all mentions of school, which includes both secondary and post secondary institutions.
As previously stated, access of databases provided by intellectual property offices is extremely limited (2% to 6%), and even among those who do make use of these free resources, between one-in-ten and one-in-five have not used them in the previous 12 months. Among companies that use the free Internet databases offered by various Intellectual Property Offices, between one-third and half of business leaders are unable to identify which, if any, their company had consulted with in the last 12 months. Canadian patent (36%), copyright (33%), industrial design (29%), and trademark (28%) databases were the most frequently accessed by around three-in-ten respondents.
Although commercially provided intellectual property databases are used for product development or competition monitoring more so than those from IP Offices, they are still only accessed by a small minority (14%). Information on trademarks is the most frequently cited IP query by three-in-ten (30%) respondents. Commercial databases are consulted by one-in-five (22%) for industrial designs, one-in-six (16%) for copyrights and one-in-ten (11%) for patents.
If they needed general information about intellectual property, one-quarter (24%) of senior decision makers do not know who they would consult, one-quarter (24%) would do an Internet search and one-in-five (20%) would consult a lawyer. A lawyer is the preferred source of expert advice about intellectual property for two-in-five (40%) business leaders. However, over one-quarter (29%) were unsure of whom to consult.
Almost half (46%) of senior decision makers felt that either a website or the internet was the most useful way CIPO could provide them with information about IP. Trade shows were given the nod by one-quarter (25%) of business leaders, and brochures mailed to their business were considered useful by one-in-five (20%).
When asked how the Government of Canada could best support their intellectual property information needs half (51%) of business executives were unable to respond. One in ten (11%) suggested a website.

For more information please call 1-866-997-1936 or email us at: ic.cipo-web-opic-web.ic@canada.ca.

2. Background Information

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), a special operating agency of Industry Canada, is responsible for administering Canada's system of intellectual property (IP) rights, namely patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies.

CIPO's key functions include:

assessing and granting requests for IP rights;
disseminating the technical information underlying these creations to allow other inventors to build on existing innovations;
encouraging invention, innovation and creativity in Canada;
providing expert advice on IP administration to other countries; and
promoting Canada's IP interests internationally.

Specifically, CIPO receives and examines applications for trade-marks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs and integrated circuit topographies; grants and registers these IP rights; and administers their renewal, assignment and transfer. It also oversees the qualifying examinations for patent and trade-mark agents. Its primary clients are applicants for IP protection, agents representing those applicants, exploiters of IP systems, and the Canadian business community.

CIPO provides IP information via its Website www.cipo.gc.ca and through publicly accessible databases. It is responsible for publishing the Trade-marks Journal and the Canadian Patent Office Record. It also publishes information guides on its products, bulletins, reports and news releases.

To facilitate and encourage the acquisition of IP rights and the exploitation of IP information, CIPO created an Outreach program to raise awareness of the value of IP amongst the Canadian business community, innovators and creators.

3. Program Objectives

CIPO's Outreach Division needed to develop and implement a baseline measure that will help the organization gauge overall awareness, knowledge and use of IP by Canadian small and medium sized enterprises^{Footnote 1} (SMEs), its primary target group, while evaluating over time the Outreach program's effectiveness.

More specifically, the survey results will show the level of awareness, knowledge and use of intellectual property by SMEs - by type (patents, trademarks, copyright, industrial designs, etc.), by geographical regions and industrial sectors and by size of business. The survey results will allow benchmarking with other IPOs engaged in outreach activities. This was achieved, to the extent possible, through the use of common terms and the wording of the questions in the survey questionnaire.

4. Methodology: 15 Minute Telephone Survey of 2106 Canadian SMEs.

The Strategic Counsel, on behalf of CIPO, conducted 2106 telephone surveys, of approximately 15 minutes in duration, with a random sample of Canadian-based SMEs. The overall survey results are accurate to within +/-2.14 percentage points 19 times out of 20, or at a 95% confidence level. The sample was stratified by region and industry sector classification as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes at the two digit level. For further information regarding the NAICS please visit www.statcan.ca

4.1 Sample Plan

The table below contains a summary of our sampling approach by region/province and NAICS code. Numbers are based on 2006 business counts from Statistics Canada.

Table 1: Sample Stratification
Strata	Total Businesses	Sample Size (Non-weighted)	Margin of Error (%)
Atlantic Canada	69277	300	+/-5.66
Quebec	204578	400	+/-4.93
Ontario	296836	600	+/-4.00
Manitoba/Saskatchewan	61295	135	+/-8.43
Alberta	126075	270	+/-5.96
British Columbia	139204	305	+/-5.61
North	3121	90	+/-10.33
Canada	900386	2100	+/-2.14
Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting	56950	114	+/-8.94
Mining	9320	93	+/-10.28
Utilities	1329	49	+/-13.60
Construction	119322	211	+/-6.76
Manufacturing	60345	348	+/-5.22
Retail Trade	134273	203	+/-6.92
Transportation and Warehousing	47924	99	+/-9.79
Information Services	13849	58	+/-13.83
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	122106	350	+/-5.23
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services	49786	97	+/-9.79
Educational Services	11758	47	+/-13.83
Healthcare Services	84186	92	+/-9.79
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Services	18543	49	+/-13.84
Accommodation and Food Services	74063	129	+/-8.59
Other Services (Except Public Administration)	96632	161	+/-8.00
Total	900386	2100	+/-2.14

In addition to stratifying the sample frame by province and industry sectors we also instituted soft quotas to ensure that the survey final results reflected the Canadian SMEs by company size as defined by the number of employees in the firm. This was done to ensure that the number of interviews conducted reflected the characteristics of our survey population on this indicator. The table below has a full description of the demographic make-up of those SMEs sampled.

Table 2: Demographic Profile

Length of Time in Business	Total Sample %
n=2106
Less than 5 years	12
5-15 years	40
16-25 years	24
26-35 years	14
More than 35 years	10
Location of Head Office	Total Sample %
Canada	98
United States	1
Other country

Number of Applications for Intellectual Property Protection in Past 24 Months	Total Sample %
n=2106
0	93
1-2	3
3-5	1
6-10
11 or more
Number of Full Time Employees	Total Sample %
0	2
1-2	29
3-5	24
6-10	17
11-25	14
26-100	10
101-499	3

Gender	Total Sample %
n=2106
Male	67
Female	33
Language	Total Sample %
English	81
French	19
Other	–
Title	Total Sample %
President	27
Owner	25
Manager	14
General Manager / Director	8
Admin assistant/ manger	3
Co-Owner / Partner	3
Vice-President	3

To determine the best mix of industry types to include in the sample universe the Strategic Counsel along with CIPO representatives reviewed CIPO's current client profile and following that set soft quotas at the national level by province and industry sector. The sample was provided by Dunn and Bradstreet, one of North America's leading sample providers by company size within selected NAICS codes.

The Strategic Counsel revised the survey questionnaire in consultation with the CIPO Client Relationship Management (CRM) and Outreach staff to administer the survey among the agreed upon industrial sectors. Some consideration had been given to over sampling companies with between 100-500 employees in the studies proposal phase however after much consideration and discussion with CIPO representatives it was determined that the proposed over-sample of firms with between 100-500 employees was inadvisable due mostly to a lack of sampling units among this group. In addition it was also though that increasing the sample size for this group to 700 would inflate the knowledge and awareness ratings on topic of IP as it is more likely a topic in which representatives from larger SME's would be familiar with. This in-turn would cause weighting to be applied to the overall results by company size as well and industry sector and province which would have meant for weighting beyond acceptable levels according to industry standards and practices. In addition, the Strategic Counsel implemented regional level quotas to ensure that regional level analysis was possible. On the regional level, quotas were set to ensure that they reflected each province's proportions of Canada's micro (1-4 employees), small (5-99 employees) and medium sized (100499 employees) companies within select NAICS codes.

5. Target Audience

Specifically, the target audience for this study was as follows:

Canadian firms with less than 500 employees.

5.1 Respondents Screening

At the initial point of contact, before the main interview began, all respondents were asked a series of screening questions to ensure that they were always or sometimes involved in the strategic decision making for their respective firm. More specifically, they were screened to ensure that each respondent was always or sometimes involved in strategic decision making regarding the promotion, branding, image, development, research activity and marketing of their respective firm.

5.2 Data Preparation/Weighting

Prior to analysis, the national level results were weighed to ensure that the final survey results were reflective of the target audience by region and primary NAICS designation to reflect the demographic makeup of the Canadian SME community.

5.3 Data Analysis

All survey questions were cross tabulated against the following indicators in the first phase of the analysis process:

Region (as per Table 1);
Primary NAICS code (as per table 1);
Number of IP applications filed;
Number of employees;
Familiarity with Intellectual Property;
Familiarity with the various forms of IP protection, namely Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial Designs and Trade Secrets;
Level of research and development activity.

Other indicators were used in the bi-variant analysis phase however, and the above categories were most critically related to the research purpose and intent.

Other types of analysis were used to understand the level of knowledge among the target audience such as correlation analysis and segmentation or K-means cluster analysis.

5.4 Demographic Profile

Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents

Companies who responded to the survey were evenly split between well established firms who have been in business 16 or more years (48%) and younger organizations operating for 15 years or less (40%). New companies in business for less than five years make up one tenth (12%) of the sample.
Virtually all (98%) of the companies are Canadian.
More than nine-in-ten (93%) report that they have not filed any applications for intellectual property protection with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) in the past 24 months. Among those who have filed an application, three-quarters have filed one or two.
More than half (55%) of the companies are very small businesses with five or fewer employees. Very few (3%) have between 100 and 500 employees.
The company President, Owner or Partner was the respondent in just over half (55%) of cases.
Just over one-in-five business leaders (22%) report their firms engage in Research and Development (R&D) activities. Of these, three-in-ten (30%) report their company is active in the R&D area and another three-in-ten say that they are not. The remaining 41% rate their R&D activity level as moderate.
There is no one common issue being faced by companies today. Senior decision makers reported a wide variety of challenges. Human resources and capital/financing issues tied (at 16%) as the top national concern currently facing companies. Human resources issues topped the list in the Western provinces and up North. Attracting new customers (9%) and customer retention (8%) were the top priority of just under one-in-ten nationally, although these were the primary concerns identified by Quebec respondents. Operational (6%), competitive (5%) and sales/growth (5%) issues are the biggest problems for one-in-twenty SME's in Canada.

6. Top of Mind Business Issues

Intellectual property and related topics are not top of mind issues among Canadian SMEs.

All survey respondents were asked to indicate what constituted the most important issue facing their company today.

Table 3: Top of Mind Business Issue
Most Important issue facing Company Today	Total Sample %
Q.1 What is the most important issue facing your company today? Base: Total sample (n=2106)
Human resources issues	16
Capital/Financing	16
Attracting new customers	9
Customer retention/service	8
Operational issues	6
Competitive issues	5
Sales/growth issues	5
Taxation issues	4
Economic issues	4
Bureaucracy issues/government regulation	4
Demand issues	3
Supply issues	2
Production issues	2
International trade issues/currency rates	2
Marketing	2
Fuel/energy prices	1
Other	5
None / No issue	2
DK/NA/Ref	5

At the national level, the five most frequently mentioned issues are human resource issues (16%), capital financing (16%), attracting new customers (9%), customer retention/service (8%), and operational issues (6%).

Variations in response do exist across sub-sets of the survey populations. The chart below highlights variations in response by region.

Table 4: Regional Variations Top of Mind Issues

Top-of-mind issues vary greatly from region to region.

Top two responses for each region are highlighted in red	Atlantic Canada %	Quebec %	Ontario %	Manitoba Saskatchewan %	Alberta %	British Columbia North %
Q.1 What is the most important issue facing your company today? Base: Total sample (n=2106)
	n=162	n=479	n=694	n=143	n=295	n=333
Human resources issues	15	6	13	21	32	23
Competitive issues	5	7	7	6	2	2
Supply issues	1	1	1	2	3	3
Demand issues	6	2	2	5	3	4
Production issues	1	3	1	-	2	2
Taxation issues	5	2	7	7	3	4
Operational issues	5	9	6	4	5	5
Attracting new customers	8	20	6	3	4	5
Customer retention/service	5	16	6	4	5	5
Capital/Financing	18	11	19	21	12	16
Sales/growth issues	3	6	7	3	6	3
Economic issues	4	3	4	7	3	3
International trade issues/currency rates	2	1	2	2	2
Fuel/energy prices	3	1	2	1	1	2
Bureaucracy issues/government regulation	6	1	5	3	3	5
Marketing	2	1	2	1	2	2
Other	3	4	5	4	5	9
None / No issue	1	1	2	1	4	1
DK/NA/Ref	7	9	5	6	3	5

7. Familiarity with the Term Intellectual Property

In general, familiarity with the term IP is low among those surveyed. That notwithstanding, senior decision makers in select industries do report higher levels of familiarity with the term IP than others. In Canada's metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver there are significantly larger proportions of respondents more likely than the national average to report that they are familiar with the term Intellectual Property.

All survey respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 0-10 how familiar they are with the term Intellectual Property. For analysis purposes, those who said 0-3 are classified as being "not familiar"; those who said 4-6 were classified as somewhat or moderately familiar, those who rated themselves 7-10 are classified as being "familiar" with the term "Intellectual Property."

Table 5: Familiarity with Intellectual Property

Familiarity with the term Intellectual Property…

Q.2 Please indicate how familiar you are with the term Intellectual Property on a scale from 0-10 where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar, 5 is the mid-point.

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

On the National level, a plurality of SMEs (41%) rated themselves as "not familiar" (rated 0-3 on a 10 point scale) with the term Intellectual Property. In contrast to the national average, pluralities in Canada's largest urban areas of Toronto (44%), Montreal (42%) and Vancouver (41%), report that they are familiar with the term Intellectual Property.

Self-reported familiarity with the term IP was high in firms with between 26-100 full-time employees (51%) and significantly higher in firms with between 101 and 499 employees (61%).

As per table 6 below, respondents employed in some industry sectors report higher levels of familiarity than others. The highest levels of familiarity by industry sector are reported in the areas of Information and Cultural Services (70%), Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (63%), Educational Services (58%), Administrative/Support/Waste Management/Remedial Services (48%), Manufacturing (43%), Mining/Oil and Gas Extraction (42%), Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Services (42%).

Table 6: Familiarity with Intellectual Property by Industry Sector

Familiarity with the term Intellectual Property varies greatly from Industry sector to industry sector.

Bar chart of Familiarity with Intellectual Property by Industry Sector

Q.2 Please indicate how familiar you are with the term Intellectual Property on a scale from 0-10 where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar, 5 is the mid-point.

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Not surprisingly, familiarity with IP in general is also higher among those who rate themselves as familiar (rated 7-10, on a scale from 0-10) with the various forms or types of IP protection. For example, self-rated familiarity is highest among those who rate themselves as familiar with IP for trade secrets (59%), industrial designs (57%), patent (53%), trademark (52%) and copyright IP protection (52%). In other words, there is a positive correlation between familiarity with the term IP and its various forms.

Finally, while only 22% of businesses conduct Research and Development (R&D), familiarity with the term IP is higher among firms who are active in the area of R&D (56%), as opposed to those that are not active in the area of Research and Development (29%). This is especially true for firms that are very active, for example those who rate their firm's R&D activity from 7-10, on a scale from 0-10, in the area of R&D.

7.1 Familiarity with the various forms of Intellectual Property Protection

Respondents were asked not only to rate their familiarity with the term Intellectual Property but also to rate their familiarity with five types of Intellectual Property Protection—Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, Trade Secrets and Industrial Designs.

Table 7: Familiarity with Intellectual Property

Familiarity with the term Intellectual Property

Q.2 Please indicate how familiar you are with the term Intellectual Property on a scale from 0-10 where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar, 5 is the mid-point.

Q.6A-E On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Self-rated familiarity with the various forms of Intellectual Property Protection is moderate.

Overall, self-rated familiarity among the target audience with copyright (40%), trademark (38%) and patent protection (35%) is moderate and on par with the familiarity levels reported above for the term IP.
Overall, self-rated familiarity among the target audience with trade secrets (17%) and industrial design protection (15%) is low.

In summary, familiarity with the term IP breeds familiarity with the three main or traditional forms of IP—copyrights, patents and trademarks. While this is also true of industrial designs and trade secrets, the strength of the relationship is lesser than in the case of the more common or traditional forms of IP.

7.1.1 Self-rated Familiarity—Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial Designs and Trade Secrets

As was the case with the term IP, all respondents were asked to rate their level of familiarity with patent, trademark, copyright, industrial design and trade secret forms of IP protection. Again, for analysis purposes, those who said 0-3 are classified as being "not familiar"; those who said 4-6 were classified as somewhat or moderately familiar, those who rated themselves 7-10 are classified as being "familiar" with the term "Intellectual Property."

7.1.2 Copyright Protection

A strong plurality of respondents rate themselves as familiar with copyright protection (40%), 35% rate themselves as somewhat or moderately familiar copyright protection, while the remaining 25% rate themselves as not familiar with copyright protection.

Table 8: Self-rated Familiarity Copyright IP Protection

Familiarity with Types of Intellectual Property—By Region

Q.6C On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

7.1.3 Trademark Protection

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents rated themselves as familiar with Trademark Protection, 35% rated themselves as somewhat/moderately familiar Trademark Protection, while the remaining 27% rated themselves as not familiar with Trademark protection.

Table 9: Self Rated Famaliarity with Trademarks by Region

Familiarity with Types of Intellectual Property—By Region

Q.6B On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

7.1.4 Patent Protection

A slight plurality of respondents (35%) rated themselves as familiar with Patent Protection, 34% rated themselves as somewhat/moderately familiar Patent Protection, while the remaining 31% rate themselves as not being familiar with Patent Protection.

Table 10: Self Rated Famaliarity with Patents by Region

Familiarity with Types of Intellectual Property—By Region

Q.6A On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

7.1.5 Industrial Design Protection

A small minority of respondents (14%) rated themselves as being familiar with industrial design protection; 29% rated themselves as somewhat or moderately familiar with industrial design protection, while the remaining 56% rated themselves as being not familiar with industrial design protection. Finally, 1% indicated that they do not know.

Table 11: Self Rated Famaliarity with Industrial designs by Region

Familiarity with Types of Intellectual Property—By Region

Q.6D On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

7.1.6 Trade Secrets

A minority of respondents (17%) themselves as being familiar with trade secrets, while 27% rated themselves as somewhat or moderately familiar trade secrets, while the remaining 56% rated themselves as being not familiar with trade secrets. One percent says they do not know. As was the case with familiarity with Industrial Design Protection, 1% indicated that they did not know.

Table 12: Self Rated Famaliarity with Trade Secrets by Region

Familiarity with Types of Intellectual Property—By Region

Q.6E On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid-point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

8. Top of mind Associations with the term Intellectual Property

Top of mind associations with the term Intellectual Property center around themes and words that are somewhat associated with the term, among those who say they are moderately familiar or familiar with the term Intellectual property.

Respondents who rated themselves as moderately familiar or familiar with the term Intellectual Property were asked to indicate the first thing that comes to their mind when they hear the term Intellectual Property.

Table 13: Top of Mind Associations with Intellectual Property

Top-of-mind associations with the term IP are fairly accurate among those who rate themselves as somewhat familiar or familiar with the term IP. However some confusion persists among this group, in that they are unable to provide associations with IP that would be considered very accurate.

	Total Sample %
Q.2A We are just looking for your honest views, attitudes and impressions. Now, when you hear the term Intellectual Property what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Base: Those who rated their familiarity with the term Intellectual Property 4-10 (n=1200)
Ideas / Information / Knowledge / Research	17
Copyright	10
Intelligence / Intelligent people	9
Ownership	7
Patents	7
Software / Computers / Technology	6
Books / Music / Art	5
Creation / Invention / Developed product	5
Trademarks / Branding	3
Property / Assets	3
Human resources / People / Executives	3
Rights	2
Security / Protection / Privacy	2
Lawyers / Legal issues / Legal documents	1
Theft / Dishonesty / Fraud	1
Nothing	4
Other	7
DK/NA/Ref	9

Interestingly the largest group of respondents associate the term Intellectual Property with Ideas/information/knowledge/research (17%) and by the following IP related and non- related terms and concepts such copyrights (10%), intelligence and/or intelligent people (9%), ownership (7%), patents (7%), software/computers/technology (6%), books/music/art (5%).

8.1 Knowledge of Methods or Types of IP Protection.

Most (62% ) respondents could not name any forms of Intellectual Property.

All respondents were asked what, if any, formal methods or types of IP they could name.

Table 14: Identification of Formal IP Protection

The majority (62%) of senior business representatives could not identify any formal methods or types of IP protection.

Bar chart of Identification of Formal IP Protection

Q.3 What, if any, formal methods or types of intellectual Property protection can you name?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

The majority of respondents (62%) said they could not name any formal methods or types of Intellectual Property. Nevertheless, almost 2 in 10 respondents (19%) were able to list at least one or more formal methods or forms of IP protection. The most frequently mentioned were Copyright protection, followed closely by Patent protection (16%), Trade Mark protection (10%), License Agreements (3%), Trade Secrets (1%), Industrial Design Protection (1%), Integrated Circuit Typographies (

In addition to the forms of IP mentioned above, a small proportion of respondents mentioned specific products and items to which IP protection can be applied including Software/Computers/ Technology (3%), Art/creative works (2%), and Company Name (1%).

9. Knowledge of Organization responsible for the registration or granting of Intellectual Property Protection

The vast majority (81%) of senior decision makers surveyed could not correctly identify CIPO as the organization responsible for the registration or granting of IP rights in Canada.

One percent of respondents were able, in an un-aided manner, to list CIPO as the organization responsible for the granting or registration of intellectual property protection in Canada. The vast majority of SMEs (81%) said they did not know or were not sure about which organization was responsible for the granting or registration of IP rights in Canada.

Table 15: Organization Responsible for Granting IP Protection

Knowledge of which organization is responsible for granting and/or registration of IP protection in Canada is very low. Only 1% of respondents are able to identify CIPO as the organization responsible for the granting or registration of IP protection in Canada.

Pie chart of what organization is responsible for granting and or registering Intellectual Property (IP) rights in Canada and bar chart of organizations named

Q.4 What organization is responsible for granting and or registering Intellectual Property (IP) rights in Canada?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Some respondents cite different types of IP offices when attempting to name the organization responsible for the registration of IP in Canada. They include the following:

The Patent Office (4%)
The Trademark Office (1%)
The Copyright Office (1%)

Other respondents seemed to be aware that the responsibility for the granting or registration of IP in Canada resided with the Government of Canada but were not able to correctly cite CIPO as the organization. Instead, the following federal departments and/or organizations were indicated:

The Government of Canada in General (6%);
Industry Canada (1%);
The Canada Revenue Agency (
Justice Canada (
Statistics Canada (

Other respondents seemed to be aware of the fact that the responsibility for the granting or registration of IP is housed within the "Government", but were less certain about the level or department. Both the "Government" (2%) and, respondents respective provincial government (1%) were mentioned.

Other less accurate responses include the following:

Private Organizations (1%)
The US Patents and Trademark Office (
Lawyers/Law Firms (1%); and,
The Canadian Bar Association (

Finally 1% mentioned some "other organizations" which were not mentioned above and another 1% did not respond to the question.

10. Familiarity with CIPO in Contrast

The vast majority (90%) of senior decision makers surveyed rate themselves as “not familiar” with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

All respondents were asked to indicate their level of familiarity with a variety of organizations including CIPO on a scale from 0-10. For analysis purposes those who said 0-3 are classified as "not familiar", those who said 4-6 were classified as being somewhat or moderately familiar, and those who said 7-10 are classified as being familiar with the term "Intellectual Property."

The organizations examined include the following:

Industry Canada (IC);
The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA);
The Canadian Radio and Television Broadcasting Commission (CRTC);
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO);
The Royal Canadian Mint (RCM);
Nike.

Table 16: Familiarity with CIPO and Other Organizations

Familiarity with CIPO and Other Organizations

Q.4A:A-F I am going to read you a list of private and public sector organizations, please tell me how familiar you are with each Organization and it's product and services on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar and 5 is the mid-point.

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Among those SMEs surveyed the highest levels of familiarity are reported for CRA (73% saying 7-10, on a scale from 0-10) followed by Nike (54%), the RCM (43%), the CRTC (40%), Industry Canada (21%) and CIPO (3%).

Looking specifically at CIPO, we find that the vast majority of respondents (90%) rate themselves as "not familiar" (saying 0-3 on a scale from 0-10) with CIPO and its products and services. The remaining respondents (10%) rate themselves as somewhat or moderately familiar (saying 4-6, on a scale from 0-10 (7%), with three percent reporting that they are "familiar" with CIPO and its products and services. Very little or no sub-group variations in response existed on this measure.

There is a positive correlation between self-reported familiarity with the term IP and self reported familiarity with CIPO. For instance respondents who are aware of the term IP (7-10 on a 10pt scale) are more aware of CIPO (7%), whereas those who are less aware of the term IP (0-6 on a 10pt scale) are less aware of CIPO (1%)

There is also a positive relationship or correlation between the level of Research and Development (R&D) activity and level of self reported familiarity with CIPO and its products and services. For instance those who report a higher level of R&D activity (7-10 on a 10pt scale) are more aware of CIPO (9%), whereas respondents who report a lower level of R&D activity (0-6 on a 10pt scale) are less aware of CIPO (2%).

11. Impediments to filing for IP Protection

All survey respondents were asked if there are any significant impediments to filing for IP protection.

Table 17: Impediments to Filing for IP Protection

Impediments to Filing for Intellectual Property Protection

	Patents %	Copyrights %	Trademarks %	Industrial Designs %
Q.9A-D In your view are there any significant impediments to filing for Intellectual Property (IP) protection for Patents/Copyrights/Trademarks/Industrial Designs? Base: Total sample (n=2106)
	n=2106	n=2106	n=2106	n=2106
Cost	11	6	8	6
Lack of information/too much research required	4	3	3	2
Complicated process	3	2	2	1
Time/long process	3	2	2	2
Security/idea theft/espionage/copy	2	2	1	2
Integrity of IP protection	2	1	1	1
Bureaucracy	2	1	2	1
Value	1		1
Yes (unspecified)	1	1	1	1
No/None	29	32	31	28
DK/NA/Ref	46	50	49	55

According to those surveyed, the perceived impediments to filing for IP protection are few and far between. Whether they were asked about or industrial designing (83%), copyrighting (81%), trade-marking (80%), or patents (75%), the vast majority of respondents could not indicate a top-of-mind impediment to filing for intellectual property protection.

Of the impediments mentioned, cost was indicated the most for each form of IP examined in relation to patent protection. A second impediment was information related—respondents indicated they either did not have enough information or there was too much information to research on the subject.

A higher proportion of respondents from the province of Quebec mentioned cost as an impediment as opposed to respondents from other regions.

12. Internet Database Usage

Very few respondents indicated that they use free Internet databases for product development and/or competition monitoring for patenting, copyrighting, trade-marking or industrial designing. In fact, only one-in-ten respondents have used any or either of the free Internet databases.

Table 18: Internet Database Usage

Use of Free Internet Databases for Product Development and/or Competition Monitoring

Q.10 Does your company use any of the following free Internet databases offered by various Intellectual Property Offices as a source of information for product development and/or competition monitoring?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Of the respondents who indicated they did consult an IP Office database, a significant number could not say which database they had consulted; especially for industrial design databases where over half of respondents indicated they did not know.

For each type of database, a plurality of respondents indicated they consulted the Canadian database in the last 12 months (Patents: 36%; Copyrights: 33%; Industrial Design: 29%; Trade-marks: 28%).

Table 19: IP Offices' Databases Consulted—Patents and Trade-marks

IP Offices' Database Consulted in Last 12 Months

Bar charts of IP Offices' Databases Consulted in Last 12 Months—Patents and Trade-marks

Q.11A Which Intellectual Property Offices' Patent database have you consulted in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who used Patent databases (n=87)

Q.11B Which Intellectual Property Offices' Trade-mark database have you consulted in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who used Trade-mark databases (n=128)

Table 20: IP Offices' Databases Consulted—Industrial Designs and Copyrights

IP Offices' Database Consulted in Last 12 Months

Bar charts of IP Offices' Databases Consulted in Last 12 Months—Industrial Designs and Copyrights

Q.11C Which Intellectual Property Offices' Industrial Design database have you consulted in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who used Industrial Design databases (n=52)

Q.11D Which Intellectual Property Offices' Copyright database have you consulted in the last 12 months?

Base: Those who used Copyright databases (n=86)

13. Commercial Database Usage

As was the case regarding the use of free Internet databases, consulting commercial databases is equally low (16% for free Internet (Trademarks 6%, Patents 4%, Copyrights 4%, Industrial Designs 2%), and 14% for commercial).

Of the respondents who did indicate using commercial databases, a plurality of them used the database for trade-marking (30%). Again, like free Internet databases, a significant number of respondents who said they used commercial databases could not say what type they had used.

Respondents in British Columbia (18%) were more likely to use commercial databases. By the same token, small (18%) or large (20%) companies are more likely to use commercial databases than very small (9%) or medium size companies (12%).

Table 21: Use of Commercial Databases

Use of Commercial Databases

Q.12 Does your company use commercial databases as a source of information for product development and/or competition monitoring?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Q.13 For what types of Intellectual Property did you consult a commercial database?

Base: Those who use commercial databases (n=285)

14. Violations/Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights

Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their level of concern relative to IP violations and infringements, and were asked if they had been impacted by an IP infringement in the past, and what type of violation or infringement concerned them the most.

While the majority of respondents did not have significant concerns over violation of infringement of intellectual property (78%), one-in-five (20%) indicated the violations or infringements are a significant concern.

A higher proportion of companies in Ontario (24%) and British Columbia (26%) were concerned, while a lower proportion of companies in the Atlantic Provinces (15%) and Quebec (13%) were concerned.

Table 22: Violations/Infringements of IP Rights

Violations/Infringements of IP Rights

Pie chart of Is IP infringement a concern? / Pie chart of Have you been affected by an IP violation / Bar chart of Type of Violation Concerned Most About

Q.15 For your type of business is the violation or infringement of Intellectual Property rights a significant concern?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Q.16A Has your company been affected by violations or infringements of your Intellectual Property rights?

Q.16B Which type of Intellectual Property violation or infringement concerns you most?

Base: Those for who IP violation/infringement is a significant concern (n=422)

While the majority of respondents indicated that their company had not been affected by violations or infringements of their Intellectual Property rights (70%), only about one-in-four (27%) indicated they had been affected.

A higher proportion of companies in the Atlantic Provinces (38%) and Quebec (37%) were affected by violations or infringements, while a lower proportion of companies in Alberta were affected (16%).

Respondents were most concerned about violations or infringements related to copyrights or trademarks. A higher proportion of companies in British Columbia (44%) were concerned with copyright violations or infringements, while more companies in Quebec (28%) were concerned with patent violations or infringements.

15. Sources for Expert Advice and General Advice Regarding IP

When looking for expert advice about Intellectual Property, the number one choice for companies in Canada was to consult with a lawyer (40%). A lower proportion of companies in Quebec (27%) look to lawyers for expert advice than in other regions, however it remains the number one choice.

Table 23: Sources of IP Advice Regarding IP

CIPO is not a top of mind source of general information or general or expert advice regarding IP.

Bar charts showing Sources of IP Advice Regarding IP: For Expert Advice (Top 5 Responses) and For General Information (Top 5 Responses)

Q.17 If you needed expert advice about Intellectual Property, whom would you consult?

Q.18 If you needed general information about Intellectual Property, whom would you consult?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

A higher proportion of larger companies (26 employees or more) (59%) selected lawyers, as their first choice for expert advice.

When searching for general advice about Intellectual Property, Canadian companies tend to use search engines such as Google for their information (24%). However, many still seek advice from a lawyer for general information (20%).

A lower proportion of companies in Quebec use search engines (13%) than those in other provinces. They instead seek advice from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (11%).

16. Usage of CIPO's IP Products and Services

The vast majority of Canadian companies surveyed (95%) indicated that they have not used Intellectual Property information products or services provided by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO).

Table 24: IP Services Provided by CIPO

The vast majority of those surveyed have not used IP information or services provided by CIPO.

Pie chart of Have you ever used Intellectual Property information products or services?

Q.19 Have you ever used Intellectual Property information products or services provided by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Very little or no sub-group variations in response are apparent on this measure.

17. Perceived Usefulness of Various Sources for IP Information

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) provides various sources of Intellectual Property information. Respondents were asked about how useful several of these sources are to them.

Table 25: Useful Sources of IP Information Provided by CIPO

Respondents view the Internet or online as the most useful source of information about IP protection.

Bar chart of Useful Sources of IP Information Provided by CIPO

Q.20 The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) provides various sources of Intellectual Property (IP) information. How useful do you consider each of the following. Please respond using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means not at all useful, 10 means very useful and 5 is the mid-point.

Base: Total sample

None of the sources provided to the respondent proved to be overly useful as less than half of the respondents gave them a rating of 7 or more on a 10-point scale. A plurality considered the website (46%) useful, followed by fairs, trade-shows, and exhibits (25%) and mail-out brochures (20%).

It is important to note that nearly half of the companies surveyed considered CIPO's client service centre (46%) and CIPO's regional business development officers (44%) not to be not useful (rating of 0 or 1 on a 10-point scale). However, companies in Quebec indicated significantly higher scores for both of these services than companies in the rest of Canada (26% client service centre; 18% business development officers.

18. Potential Methods to Support SME's IP Needs

All survey respondents were asked to indicate the best way the Government of Canada could support their IP information needs.

Table 26: Way the GoC can Support IP Information Needs

Respondents say that the best way the Government of Canada can support their IP information needs is via the Internet. However, the majority of those interviewed do not know how the Government of Canada can best support their IP information needs.

Bar chart of the way the GoC can Support IP Information Needs

Q.21 How could the Government of Canada best support your Intellectual Property information needs?

Base: Total sample (n=2106)

Companies in Canada say they do not know how the Government of Canada can support their IP information needs. In fact, when asked about this, half of respondents (51%) indicated they did not know. From the respondents who did provide a suggestion, the answers were spread among several ideas listed in the table above. Very little variation in the responses was apparent across the sub-groups analysed.

To assist CIPO in its goal to facilitate and encourage the acquisition of IP rights and the exploitation of IP information, CIPO created an Outreach program to raise awareness of the value of IP amongst the Canadian business community, innovators and creators. To further that goal with this target audience The Strategic Counsel has segmented this target audience based on their self-rated familiarity with the term Intellectual Property and its most common forms.

19. Familiarity Segmentation

Introduction to Familiarity Segments

In previous sections our analysis has investigated the level of familiarity of several terms of interest to CIPO. Taking this a step further, we look to identify segments of the population that likely show familiarity levels for all terms of interest (i.e. Intellectual Property, Copyright Protection, Trademark Protection, Patent Protection, Industrial Design Protection, Trade Secrets). Members of each segment are likely to process communications and information about these terms in similar ways. Cluster analysis is the technique that we used for this exploratory analysis. A cluster analysis looks at the response patterns for familiarity and groups individuals into segments or clusters.

The cluster analysis was performed on the following items of interest:

level of familiarity with the term Intellectual Property;
level of familiarity with the term Patents;
level of familiarity with the term Trademarks;
level of familiarity with the term Copyrights;
level of familiarity with the term Industrial designs; and
level of familiarity with the term Trade secrets.

Cluster analysis reveals the presence of two clearly identifiable clusters of individuals. The two segments are as follows:

Low Familiarity: These individuals, representing 49% of respondents, have been labelled as Low Familiarity because they indicate low levels of familiarity on the variables used for this exercise.
High Familiarity: These individuals, representing 51% of respondents, have been labelled as High Familiarity because they indicate high levels of familiarity on the variables used for this exercise.

20. Profiling Familiarity Segments

Having established that there are two distinct segments within the targeted Canadian SME population in terms of their familiarity with the terms of interest, it is helpful for communicators to understand the demographic characteristics of each segment. Knowing that there are two separate types of individuals in terms of their familiarity with these terms is interesting, from a communications perspective as well as being particularly useful. It allows communicators to profile them—to know who these people are and where they are. The table below presents a summary of the demographic characteristics for each segment.

Low Familiarity: This cluster has more companies from the following industry sectors: agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing; construction; retail trade, transportation and warehousing; health services; accommodation and food services; and finally, other services (not public administration). More likely to indicate that they do not have IP assets or do not know if they have IP assets or not. Respondents in this cluster are also more likely to work in a company that does not have an active research and development function.
High Familiarity: This cluster has more companies from the following industry sectors: information and cultural industries; professional scientific and technique services; administrative and support services; arts entertainment and recreational services; manufacturing; mining, oil and gas extraction. Respondents in this cluster are more likely to indicate that they do have IP assets. They are also are also more likely to work in SMEs that have active research and development function.

Table 27: Demographic Profile

Demographics Variations Across the "Familiarity" Segments (items in bold indicates a much higher concentration of this demographic group within this segment)

	Low Familiarity 49%	High Familiarity 51%
Industry Sector	Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting and Fishing	Information and Cultural Industries
	Construction	Professional Scientific and Technique Services
	Retail Trade	Administrative/Support Services
	Transportation and Warehousing	Arts Entertainment and Recreational Services
	Health Services	Manufacturing
	Accommodation and Food Services	Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction
IP Assets	No/Don't know	Yes
Research and Development	No	Yes

21. Conclusions/Recommendations

Understanding that there are two distinct groups of respondents is especially important for CIPO's future communications and marketing strategy. From a research perspective CIPO has several options. We suggest that a starting point include some exploratory research among both familiarity segments.

21.1 Low Familiarity Segment

It is clear from the survey results that this segment of the target population will require a specific approach if CIPO is to achieve its goal of facilitating and encouraging the acquisition of IP rights and the exploitation of IP information among this target group. Survey findings indicate that this group holds a very basic understanding and appreciation for Intellectual Property and its application to their business. To flush out how to most effectively communicate with this segment, CIPO should engage them in a series of one-on-one interviews, focus groups or other exploratory research. Given the low level of stated familiarity, and for that matter knowledge of IP and IP-related information among this segment, any future communication strategy will likely need to be basic and fundamental in nature as it applies to the topic of IP. Some may term it a grass roots campaign.

21.2 High Familiarity Segment

Again, the survey results suggest that this segment of the target population will require a specific approach if CIPO is to achieve its goal of facilitating and encouraging the acquisition of IP rights and the exploitation of IP information among this target group. This group holds a somewhat informed understanding and appreciation for Intellectual Property and its application to their business. Once again, to flush out how best to communicate with this segment CIPO should engage them in a series of one-on-one interviews or mini focus groups or other type of exploratory research. Given the higher level of stated familiarity, and for that matter knowledge of IP and IP related information among this segment, any communication strategy will likely differ slightly from the low familiarity segment as it will likely need to focus on more advanced topics and information related to IP registration.

21.3 Research with Intermediaries

In addition to conducting research among the target audience CIPO may wish to also include feedback for intermediaries in this regard. Conducting qualitative research among Lawyers and IP Agents who specialize or who are involved in the IP registration process may also serve to provide CIPO with the communications advice it needs to in develop a overarching communication strategy that not only targets direct clients of CIPO by also those who chose or would most like choose to apply for Intellectual Property Protection through an agent or third party. It would also be our suggestion that this research be exploratory in nature, either one-on-one interviews or focus group discussions.

21.4 Research Recommendations

For all three segments, the purpose of the exploratory research should be to understand the most effective communication strategy per segment. As such, the research could seek to identify:

The current understanding of IP and its perceived usefulness among this audience;
Views on existing or potential communications products, including the medium (print, verbal communications) of delivery;
Misperceptions about IP;
Other typical communications strategy requirements such as the preferred mode (billboards, inserts, news letters) of communication, placement of information etc.

II. Appendix A—Questionnaire

Intro

Hello, my name is _______ I work for the Strategic Counsel, a national professional public opinion research company. I'm calling on behalf of the Government of Canada to conduct a short 15-minute survey with business people like you concerning their views on important business community issues. Let me assure you that we are not trying to sell you anything and that this interview is completely confidential. Your participation is voluntary and the information you provide will not identify you or your business. The survey results will help the Government of Canada improve its service to the Canadian business community. For this survey we are interviewing one person per company. May I please speak with a senior member of your business management team? For example a Vice President, Owner, CEO, CFO, COO, or President.

OK—Continue

GEND

Do not read Note Gender of Respondent

Male	1
Female	2

LANG1

Do not read Record Language of Survey

English	1
French	2

SCR1

Do you or anyone in your immediate family work for any of the following organizations…(Read List)

The Government of Canada—Disqualified	1
Market Research Firm—Disqualified	2
None of the above—Continue	3
Don't know/refused—Disqualified	9

11:

SCR2

Does your business/company employ over 500 people? (Do not read)

Yes—(500 or More)—Disqualified	1
No—(Less than 500)—Continue	2
Don't know/Refused—Disqualified	9

14:

SCR3

In your company, are you always, sometimes, rarely or never involved in the company's strategic decision making.

Always	1
Sometimes	2
Rarely (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	3
Never (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	4
Don't know or Refused (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	9

15:

SCR4

And, are you always, sometimes, rarely or never involved in the company's strategic decision making regarding the promotion, branding, image, development, research activities and marketing of your firm.

Always	1
Sometimes	2
Rarely (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	3
Never (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	4
Don't know or Refused (Back to Intro and Re-introduce)	9

16:

SCR5

Is this company or organization a not for profit or charitable organization.

Not for profit	1
Charitable	2
None of the Above	3
Other	4
Do not know or refused	9

17:

What is your current title? (Do not read list)

Accountant/ Book keeper	01
Administrative assistant/ Administrative manager	02
Chief Executive Officer	03
Controller/ Operator	04
Co-owner/ Partner	05
General Manager/ Director	06
Manager (All mentions)	07
Owner	08
President	09
Secretary Tresurer	10
Secretary	11
Vice-President	12
Chief Financial Officer	13
Executive Director	14
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

18:

SCR6

What is your primary job function? (i.e.: Your primary responsibilities and duties)

Accounting/ Book keeping/ Finance/ Treasurer	01
Administration/ Human Resources/ Payroll	02
Everything	03
Management	04
Owner/ President/ CEO	05
Running the business/ Making decisions	06
Marketing/ Advertise	07
Sales/ Billing/ Distribute	08
Supervisor	09
Design/ Research/ Development	10
Service/ Customer service	11
Operator/ Labour work/ Blue collar jobs	12
Secretary/ Answering the phone/ Reception	13
Consulting/ Estimating	14
Purchasing	15
White collar jobs/ Architect/ Engineer	16
(Specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

19:

What is the most important issue facing your company today? (Do not read)

Human Resources Issues	01
Competitive Issues	02
Supply Issues	03
Demand Issues	04
Production Issues	05
Taxation Issues	06
Operational Issues	07
Attracting new customers/ Establishing our place in market	08
Customer retention/service	09
Capital/Financing	10
Sales/Growth issues	11
Economic Issues	12
International Trade Issues/ Currency rates	13
Fuel/Energy Prices	14
Bureaucracy Issues/ Government Regulation	15
Marketing	16
Other Specify	88
Don't Know	89
No issues/ None	90
Refused	99

20:

Please indicate how familiar you are with the term Intellectual Property on a scale from 0-10 where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar and 5 is the midpoint.

0—not at all familiar	00
1	01
2	02
3	03
4	04
5	05
6	06
7	07
8	08
9	09
10—very familiar	10
Do Not Know	89
Refused	99

21:

Q2A

Before we begin the main section of the survey I want to emphasize that there are no right or wrong answers to the survey. We are just looking for your honest views, attitudes and impressions. Now, when you hear the term Intellectual Property what is the first thing that comes to your mind?

Nothing	01
Copyright	02
Ownership	03
Patents	04
Software/ Computers/ Technology	05
Music/ Books/ Art	06
Ideas/ Information/ Knowledge/ Research	07
Trademarks/ Branding	08
Property/ Assets	09
Intelligence/ Intelligent People	10
Rights	11
Lawyers /Legal issues /Legal documents	12
Security/ Protection/ Privacy	13
Creation/ Developed Product/ Invention	14
Theft/ Dishonesty/ Fraud	15
Human resources/ People/ Executives	16
Record answer (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

22:

What if any formal methods or types of Intellectual Property (IP) protection can you name? (Open-end: Do Not Read List, mark all mentions).

Patent Protection	01
Copyright Protection	02
Trade-mark Protection	03
Industrial Design Protection	04
Plant breeders' Rights Protection	05
Trade Secrets	06
License Agreements	07
Company Name	08
Integrated Circuit	09
Contracts	10
Software/ Computers/ Technology	11
Art/ Creative works	12
Government restrictions (General)	13
Insurance	14
Lawyers/ Law suits	15
Other Specify:	88
Don't Know	89
None	90
Refused	99

23:

What organization is responsible for granting and or registering Intellectual Property (IP) rights in Canada? (Do Not Read list, record first mention only)

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)	01
Industry Canada	02
The Canadian Bar Association	03
The Canada Revenue Agency	04
Your Provincial Government	05
The US Patents and Trademark Office	06
Statistics Canada	07
Justice Canada	08
The Government of Canada (Federal Government)	09
Patent Office	10
Trade-Mark Office	11
Copyright Office	12
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada	13
Government Department (General)	14
Lawyers/Law firms	15
Other Private Organization	17
Other Specify:	88
Don't Know/Not Sure	89
Refused/Non-response	99

24:

Q4A

I am going to read you a list of private and public sector organizations, please tell me how familiar you are with each Organization and it's product and services on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you are not at all familiar, 10 means you are very familiar and 5 is the midpoint.

Continue

25:

Q4AA

	00—not at all familiar	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10—very familiar	Don't know/ Refused
Industry Canada
Canada Revenue Agency
CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commision)
CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office)
The Royal Canadian Mint
Nike

31:

On a scale from 0-10 where 0 is not at all familiar, 10 is very familiar and 5 is the mid point, how familiar would you say you are with the following types of Intellectual Property protection?

Press Enter or click OK to Continue

32:

Q6A

	0—not at all familiar	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10—very familiar	Don't know/Refused
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Industrial designs
Trade secrets

37:

Q7A

Where did you first learn about Intellectual Property protection for Patents? [Do not read]

Fairs/Trade shows/exhibits/information sessions	01
Brochures	02
Newspaper or magazine articles	03
Internet/Web (general)—(Probe for specific website or search engine)	04
Government of Canada (Probe—which department)	05
Industry Canada	06
CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office)	07
In school	08
Business Associations	09
Banker	10
Lawyer	11
Accountant/Financial Advisor	12
Television/ Radio/ Media/ Reading	13
Personal experience/ Work	14
Word of mouth	15
Family member	16
Friend/ Acquaintance/ Colleague	17
Other (specify)	88
Had not / Just learned about it due to survey	89
Don't know/Refused	99

38:

Q7AA

Internet/Web [Probe for specific website or search engine] [Do not read]

Google	01
Government of Canada Website (General)	02
Search Engine/ Web Search (General)	03
Specific website Or Search Engine:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

39:

Q7AB

Government of Canada [Probe which department] [Do not read]

Ministry of commerce	01
National Library	02
National Research Council	03
Canada Business Service Center	04
Government of Canada Department:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

40:

Q7B

Where did you first learn about Intellectual Property protection for Copyrights? [Do not read]

Fairs/Trade shows/exhibits/information sessions	01
Brochures	02
Newspaper or magazine articles	03
Internet/Web (general)	04
Government of Canada	05
Industry Canada	06
CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office)	07
In school	08
Business Associations	09
Banker	10
Lawyer	11
Accountant/Financial Advisor	12
Television/ Radio/ Media/ Reading	13
Personal Experience/ Work	14
Word of Mouth	15
Family Member	16
Friend/ Acquaintance/ Colleague	17
Other (specify)	88
Had not/ Just learned about it due to survey	89
Don't know/Refused	99

41:

Q7BA

Internet/Web [Probe for specific website or search engine] [Do not read]

Google	01
Government of Canada Website (General)	02
Search Engine/ Web Search (General)	03
Yahoo	04
Specific Website Or Search Engine:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

42:

42: Q7BB

Government of Canada [Probe which department] [Do not read]

National library	01
Canada business service center	02
Patent department	03
Government of Canada Department:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

43:

Q7C

Where did you first learn about Intellectual Property protection for Trade-marks? [DO NOT READ]

Fairs/Trade shows/exhibits/information sessions	01
Brochures	02
Newspaper or magazine articles	03
Internet/Web (general)	04
Government of Canada	05
Industry Canada	06
CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office)	07
In school	08
Business Associations	09
Banker	10
Lawyer	11
Accountant/Financial Advisor	12
Television/ Radio/ Media/ Reading	13
Personal Experience/ Work	14
Word of Mouth	15
Family member	16
Friend/ Acquaintance/ Colleague	17
Other (specify)	88
Had not/ Just learned about it due to survey	89
Don't know/Refused	99

44:

Q7CA

Internet/Web [Probe for specific website or search engine] [Do not read]

Google	01
Government of Canada Website (General)	02
Yahoo	03
Specific Website Or Search Engine:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

45:

Q7CB

Government of Canada [Probe which department] [Do not read]

Revenue Canada	01
Registry	02
National Library	03
Industry Canada	04
Canada Business Service Center	05
Corporate Registration Department	06
Government of Canada Department:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

46:

Q7C1

To your knowledge, does registering a business name protect your trade-marks? [Do not read]

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/Refused	9

47:

Q7C2

Please tell us the difference between a business name registration and a Trade-mark registration. [Do not read]

BNR is only the Name of the Business/ Registers the Business	01
A Trade Mark is a Logo or Product/ Not the Company Name	02
They are Registered with Different Offices/ Processes	03
Trade Mark registration gives more or exclusive protection	04
Trade Mark protection has a wider jurisdiction	05
Trade Marks means that you own your company name	06
Business name is for taxation or financial purposes	07
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

48:

Q7C3

To your knowledge, does registering a business name protect your trade-marks?

Why do you say that?

Once it's registered, nobody else can use it/ For protection	01
It was the right thing to do/ Common knowledge/ Advice	02
Registration allows you to own/protect Trade Marks	03
My company is registered/ Because it's registered	04
Personal experience	05
Spent money for it/ Because of the cost	06
It's the Law/ Legally yours	07
They are two different things	08
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

Q7D

Where did you first learn about Intellectual Property protection for Industrial designs? [Do not read]

Fairs/Trade shows/exhibits/information sessions	01
Brochures	02
Newspaper or magazine articles	03
Internet/Web (general)	04
Government of Canada	05
Industry Canada	06
CIPO (Canadian Intellectual Property Office)	07
In school	08
Business Associations	09
Banker	10
Lawyer	11
Accountant/Financial Advisor	12
Television/ Radio/ Media/ Reading	13
Personal Experience/ Work	14
Word of Mouth	15
Family member	16
Friend/ Acquaintance/ Colleague	17
Other (specify)	88
Had not/ Just learned about it due to survey	89
Don't know/Refused	99

50:

Q7DA

Internet/Web—Probe for specific website or search engine

Google	01
CIPO Office Website	02
Yahoo	03
Specific Website Or Search Engine:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

Q7DB

Government of Canada—Probe which department

Industrial Design Department	01
Revenue Canada	02
Government of Canada Department:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

52:

As you may know, Intellectual Property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary and artistic works, as well as symbols, names, pictures, designs and models used in business. Patents, Trade-marks, Copyrights, Industrial designs, Integrated circuit topographies and Plant breeders' rights are referred to as Intellectual Property rights.

Press Enter or click OK to Continue

53:

Q8A

Now, does your business have any assets that you think could be classified as Intellectual Property? [Do not read]

Yes	1
No	2
Unsure/Maybe	3
Don't know/Refused	9

54:

Q8B

I am going to read you a list of types and methods of Intellectual Property (IP) protection. Please indicate which ones you have used or currently use to protect your Intellectual Property assets?

Patents	01
Trade-marks	02
Copyrights	03
Industrial designs	04
Trade Secrets	05
License Agreements	06
Other (e.g. Plant Breeder, Integrated Circuit)	07
None	98
Don't know/Refused	99

55:

Q8C

Generally speaking, why have you not registered your Intellectual Property (IP) assets? [Do not read]

Did not know about Intellectual Property (IP) protection	01
Did not know how to	02
Did not know you could	03
Did not know where to go to seek Intellectual Property (IP) Protection	04
Did not see the value of it	05
Intellectual Property (IP) protection is Too Costly	06
Lack of Expertise	07
Did not think it was necessary	08
Lack of time/ Have yet to get around to it	09
Other Specify	88
Don't know/Refused	99

56:

Q8D

Does your business conduct Research and Development (R&D)? [Do not read]

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/Refused	9

57:

Q8E

Please rate your firm's level of activity in the area of Research and Development on the scale 0 to 10 where 0 means your firm is not at all active, 10 means your firm is very active and 5 is the mid-point.

00—not at all active	01
01	02
02	03
03	04
04	05
05	06
06	07
07	08
08	09
09	10
10—very active	11
Don't know/Refused	99

58:

Q9A

In your view… are there any significant impediments to filing for Intellectual Property (IP)protection for Patents? [Probe: If so, what are they?] [Do not read]

Cost	01
Value	02
Integrity of Intellectual Property protection	03
Bureaucracy	05
Time / Long process	06
Lack of information / Too much research required	07
Complicated process	08
Security/ Idea theft/ Espionage/ Copy	09
Yes (Unspecified)	10
Other (specify)	88
No/ None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

59:

Q9B

In your view… are there any significant impediments to filing for Intellectual Property (IP)protection for Copyrights? [Probe: If so, what are they?] [Do not read]

Cost	01
Value	02
Integrity of Intellectual Property protection	03
Bureaucracy	05
Time / Long process	06
Lack of information / Too much research required	07
Complicated process	08
Security/ Idea theft/ Espionage/ Copy	09
Yes (Unspecified)	10
Other (specify)	88
No/ None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

60:

Q9C

In your view… are there any significant impediments to filing for Intellectual Property (IP)protection for Trade-marks? [Probe: If so, what are they?] [Do not read]

Cost	01
Value	02
Integrity of Intellectual Property protection	03
Bureaucracy	05
Time / Long process	06
Lack of information / Too much research required	07
Complicated process	08
Security/ Idea theft/ Espionage/ Copy	09
Yes (Unspecified)	10
Other (specify)	88
No	89
Don't know/Refused	99

61:

Q9D

In your view… are there any significant impediments to filing for Intellectual Property (IP)protection for Industrial designs? [Probe: If so, what are they?] [Do not read]

Cost	01
Value	02
Integrity of Intellectual Property protection	03
Bureaucracy	05
Time / Long process	06
Lack of information / Too much research required	07
Complicated process	08
Security/ Idea theft/ Espionage/ Copy	09
Yes (Unspecified)	10
Other (specify)	88
No	89
Don't know/Refused	99

62:

Q10

Does your company use any of the following free Internet databases offered by various Intellectual Property Offices as a source of information for product development and/or competition monitoring?

Press Enter or click OK to Continue

63:

Q10A

	Yes	No	Don't know/Refused
Patent databases
Trade-mark databases
Industrial design databases
Copyright databases

67:

Q11A

Which Intellectual Property Offices' Patent database have you consulted in the last 12 months? [Do not read]

Canada	01
US	02
Europe	03
World wide/ International	04
Other Specify:	88
None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

68:

Q11B

Which Intellectual Property Offices' Trade-mark database have you consulted in the last 12 months? [Do not read]

Canada	01
US	02
Europe	03
Other Specify:	88
None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

69:

Q11C

Which Intellectual Property Offices' Industrial design database have you consulted in the last 12 months? [Do not read]

Canada	01
US	02
Europe	03
Other Specify:	88
None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

70:

Q11D

Which Intellectual Property Offices' Copyright database have you consulted in the last 12 months? [Do not read]

Canada	01
US	02
Europe	03
SOCAN	04
CANCOPY	05
Quick Book Pro	06
Other Specify:	88
None	89
Don't know/Refused	99

71:

Q12

Does your company use commercial databases as a source of information for product development and/or competition monitoring?

YES	1
NO	2
Don't know/Refused	3

72:

Q13

For what types of Intellectual Property did you consult a commercial database? (Read list)

Patents	1
Copyrights	2
Industrial designs	3
Trade-marks	4
Don't know/Refused	9

73:

Q14A

What was the name of the Patent database (s) you consulted? (Accept up to three responses)

US patent office	01
Canadian Patent Office	02
NERAC	03
Lawyer Firm	04
Swine research databases	05
Database	06
Freepatentonline.com	07
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

74:

Q14B

What was the name of the Copyright database (s) you consulted? (Accept up to three responses)

US Copyright office	01
ONAX	02
NERAC	03
SOCAN	04
ABE books	05
Canadian Corporate office	06
Dialog	07
Kingamatic	08
Cantax	09
DNB Strategy	10
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

75:

Q14C

What was the name of the Industrial design database (s) you consulted? (Accept up to three responses)

Manufacturers spec and process	01
Magazines	02
NERAC	03
Autoglass	04
Yahoo	05
Website (General)	06
Accounting	07
Accumap	08
Freepatentsonline.com	09
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

76:

Q14D

What was the name of the Trade-mark database (s) you consulted? (Accept up to three responses)

CIPO	01
NAMM	02
NERAC	03
Avocat	04
Website (General)	05
CBC business reference	06
BMO reference	07
Geshnier	08
Google	09
Bowen's services	10
AC Delco	11
US Patent	12
Canadian Patent	13
UK Patent	14
SONEX	15
Gears	16
Fertichem	17
Vitro Vert	18
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

77:

Q15

For your type of business is the violation or infringement of Intellectual Property rights a significant concern?

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/Refused	9

Q16A

Has your company been affected by violations or infringements of your Intellectual Property rights?

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/Refused	9

79:

Q16B

Which type of Intellectual Property violation or infringement concerns you most? (Read List)

Patents	01
Trade-marks	02
Copyrights	03
Industrial designs	04
Trade secret theft	05
Other Please Specify:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

80:

Q17

If you needed expert advice about Intellectual Property whom would you consult? [Do not read]

Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)	01
Industry Canada	02
Patent Agent	03
Trade-mark Agent	04
Foreign Intellectual Property Office (e.g. USPTO, EPO,WIPO)	05
Lawyer	06
Accountant/Financial Advisor	07
Consultant	08
Internet search/ Google	09
Federal Government website/Federal Government	10
Government website/Government (General)	11
Government Agencies	13
Peer/ Family/ Friends	14
Business colleague	15
Legal advisor/ Notairies	16
Other (Specify):	88
No One	89
Don't know/Refused	99

81:

Q18

If you needed general information about Intellectual Property whom would you consult? [Do not read]

Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)	01
Industry Canada	02
Patent Agent	03
Trade-mark Agent	04
Foreign Intellectual Property Office (e.g. USPTO, EPO,WIPO)	05
Lawyer	06
Accountant/Financial Advisor	07
Consultant	08
Internet search/ Google	09
Federal Government website/ Federal Government	10
Government website/Government (General)	11
Government Agencies	13
Peer/ Family/ Friends	14
Business colleague	15
Legal advisor/ Notaries	16
Other (Specify):	88
No One	89
Don't know/Refused	99

82:

Q19

Have you ever used Intellectual Property information products or services provided by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)? [Do not read]

Yes (specify)	88
No/None	02
Fairs/Trade Shows/Exhibits	03
Info Sessions	04
Brochures	05
Website	06
Client Service Centre	07
CIPO Regional Business Development Officers	08
Don't know/Refused	99

83:

Q20

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) provides various sources of Intellectual Property (IP) information. How useful do you consider each of the following. Please respond using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means not at all useful, 10 means very useful, and 5 is the mid point. How about…?

Press Enter or click OK to Continue

84:

Q20A

	0—not at all useful	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10—very useful	Don't know/Refused
Fairs/Trade Shows/Exhibits
Info Sessions
Brochures mailed to your business
Website/Internet
CIPO's Client Service Centre
CIPO Regional Business Development Officers

90:

Q21

How could the Government of Canada best support your Intellectual Property information needs? [Accept up to three responses]

Advertise your services	01
Internet/ Website/ Email	02
Brochures	03
Provide more information	04
No needs concerning IP	05
Information sessions/ Trade-shows	06
Streamline procedures	07
Toll Free line/Speak with an agent	08
Mailings	09
They can't help	10
Lower taxes/ Reduce cost of the process	11
Current strategy is good / Doing a good job	12
Better laws and stronger repercussions	13
Providing more grants	14
Other (specify)	88
Don't know/Refused	99

91:

Finally, I have a few questions for statistical purposes. How many employees work full-time in your company? [Record raw number]

Don't know/Refused

999

92:

How long has your company been in business? (Record number of years , 0=less than a year)

Don't know/Refused

999

93:

Where is the head office of your company based? ( Probe for country)

Canada	01
United States	02
Other Country Specify:	88
Don't know/Refused	99

94:

In the past 24 months, how many applications for Intellectual Property protection has your business filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)? (Record raw number)

Don't know/Refused

999

95:

RGH1

Would you be interested in participating in future Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) focus group discussions or client feedback panels?

Yes	1
No	2

96:

RGH2

Could I get your name please? (Ask them to spell it)

97:

RGH3

Could I get your email address please? (Ask them to spell it) [If no hit enter to continue]

98:

RGH4

Can we contact you at this telephone number? [If new phone please enter it, If same phone number hit enter to continue] XXX-XXX-XXXX [If response is "NO" then enter 999-999-9999 as the phone number]

99:

INT99

That's all the questions I have for you. Thank you for participating in this study. Have a great evening.

Complete

III. Appendix B—Call Dispositions

Call Dispositions—January 26, 2007

CIPO Intellectual Property Protection in Canada: Awareness Study—January 2007

Last Dialing Disposition		Total	Percent
CO	Yes—Completed	2106	10.11
*******	Total Completes	2106	10.11

INT	INT disqualified	228	1.09
*******	Total Disqualified	228	1.09

QF	Quota Full	50	0.24
*******	Total Quota Full	50	0.24

MR	Refusal Part Way	223	1.07
ND	Not available for duration of survey	437	2.10
*******	Total Terminations	660	3.17

LE	Language Barrier—not English or French	135	0.65
IL	Illness/ Incapable/ Deaf	30	0.14
*******	Total Language	165	0.79

SEF	Send to English/French interviewer	150	0.72
EFI	Interruption in interview	41	0.20
CC	Callback	4443	21.32
*******	Total Callbacks	4634	22.24

DI	Does Not Accept Incoming Calls	65	0.31
CN	Cell phone Refusal	151	0.72
RF	Refusal	5297	25.42
*******	Total Refusals	5513	26.46

BU	Busy	121	0.58
NA	No Answer	1285	6.17
AM	Answering Machine	2474	11.87
*******	Total No Answers	3880	18.62

NI	Disconnected—Not in service	2271	10.90
FM	Fax modem Number	425	2.04
BN	Residential Number	906	4.35
*******	Total Not In Service	3602	17.29

*******	Total	20838	100.*

Final Call Dispositions

Total Contacts

Callbacks

Refusals

Terminations

Quota Full

Language

Comps

Disqualified

13356

4634

5513

660

165

2106

228

Incidence Rate	=	(Comps + Terms + Quota Full)	÷	(Comps + Terms + Quota Full + Disqualified)	*	100
92.51%	=	(2106 + 660 +50 )	÷	(2106 + 2106 + 50 + 228)	*	100

Refusal Rate* (based on Total Contacts)	=	(Refusals + Terminations)	÷	Total Contacts	*	100
46.22%	=	(5513 + 660 )	÷	13356	*	100

Response Rate*	=	Completes	÷	(Completes + (Completes ÷ (Completes + Total Over Quota + Disqualified))	*	(Total no answer + Total not in service + Total terminations)	*	100
22.65%	=	2106	÷	(2106 + (2106 ÷ (2106 + 50 + 228))	*	(3880 + 3602 + 660)	*	100

Canadian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Baseline Awareness of Intellectual Property

Branch and directorate:

Rationale:

Anticipated outcomes/benefits:

Research Information:

Canadian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Baseline Awareness of Intellectual Property—March 2007

Table of Contents

I. Baseline Awareness of IP

1. Executive Summary

General Familiarity with Intellectual Property Protection and CIPO

IP Behaviours and Attitudes

Information Sources for IP

2. Background Information

3. Program Objectives

4. Methodology: 15 Minute Telephone Survey of 2106 Canadian SMEs.

4.1 Sample Plan

5. Target Audience

5.1 Respondents Screening

5.2 Data Preparation/Weighting

5.3 Data Analysis

5.4 Demographic Profile

Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents

6. Top of Mind Business Issues

7. Familiarity with the Term Intellectual Property

7.1 Familiarity with the various forms of Intellectual Property Protection

7.1.1 Self-rated Familiarity—Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Industrial Designs and Trade Secrets

7.1.2 Copyright Protection

7.1.3 Trademark Protection

7.1.4 Patent Protection

7.1.5 Industrial Design Protection

7.1.6 Trade Secrets

8. Top of mind Associations with the term Intellectual Property

8.1 Knowledge of Methods or Types of IP Protection.

9. Knowledge of Organization responsible for the registration or granting of Intellectual Property Protection

10. Familiarity with CIPO in Contrast

11. Impediments to filing for IP Protection

12. Internet Database Usage

13. Commercial Database Usage

14. Violations/Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights

15. Sources for Expert Advice and General Advice Regarding IP

16. Usage of CIPO's IP Products and Services

17. Perceived Usefulness of Various Sources for IP Information

18. Potential Methods to Support SME's IP Needs

19. Familiarity Segmentation

Introduction to Familiarity Segments

20. Profiling Familiarity Segments

21. Conclusions/Recommendations

21.1 Low Familiarity Segment

21.2 High Familiarity Segment

21.3 Research with Intermediaries

21.4 Research Recommendations

II. Appendix A—Questionnaire

III. Appendix B—Call Dispositions

Call Dispositions—January 26, 2007

Final Call Dispositions