In a small woodcarving village in Oaxaca, Mexico, indigenous artisans faced a crisis. Cheap resin figures flooded the market, threatening not just their livelihoods but centuries of cultural tradition. The handcrafted wooden figures they'd been making for generations suddenly seemed destined for extinction, trampled by mass production and global competition.
Then something remarkable happened. The artisans, local authorities, and community members joined forces around a simple yet powerful idea: a collective trademark for "Tonas of Oaxaca." This shared symbol of authenticity became their shield against imitation, their banner in the marketplace, and ultimately, their path to survival.
This story isn't unique. Across the world, from Vietnamese coffee farmers to Finnish craft makers, from Peruvian potato growers to Indonesian incense producers, communities are discovering that sometimes the best way to protect what's yours is to share ownership of the very thing that makes you special.
But does this strategy actually work? A groundbreaking review of decades of research has finally connected the dots on collective trademarks, revealing both their tremendous promise and their sobering challenges.
What Makes Collective Trademarks Different
Before diving deeper, let's understand what we're talking about. You're probably familiar with regular trademarks. Nike's swoosh, Apple's bitten apple, Coca-Cola's distinctive script. These belong to single companies that use them to stand out in the marketplace and protect their brand identity.
Collective trademarks work differently. Instead of one owner, they belong to a group: a cooperative, an association, a union, or an entire community. Think of it as a shared badge of honor that says "we made this together, following our shared standards."
The organization owning the collective trademark sets membership requirements. Only businesses or individuals who meet those standards can use the mark. Fail to comply, and you lose permission to display the symbol. This ensures consistency and quality across everyone using the trademark.
These differ from geographical indications, which tie products to specific regions (like Champagne or Parmigiano-Reggiano), and from certification marks, which verify that products meet certain standards regardless of who makes them. Collective trademarks sit in between: they represent a group's collective identity and shared commitment to quality.
The Two Faces of Inclusivity
Here's why collective trademarks matter for development: they might be the most inclusive form of intellectual property we have.
Traditional intellectual property rights, like patents and individual trademarks, tend to concentrate benefits in the hands of a few wealthy actors and companies, typically located in wealthy countries and urban centers. They align with individualistic, market-driven values. But many communities around the world operate differently. They value collective wellbeing, shared heritage, community resources, and indigenous knowledge over private profit.
For these communities, especially in rural areas and the Global South, collective trademarks offer something rare: a way to protect shared assets while staying true to collective values.
The inclusivity works on two levels. Socially, collective trademarks can benefit more people simultaneously, including groups who otherwise struggle to generate economic returns. Geographically, they might offer viable alternatives for regions typically left behind: rural communities, indigenous territories, and developing nations.
But here's the crucial question that researchers set out to answer: Is this potential real, or just wishful thinking?
What Six Decades of Research Reveals
A comprehensive review pulled together 60 studies from over 70 researchers spanning multiple disciplines and 24 countries. The research covered tourism, food production, crafts, rural development, indigenous communities, and innovation. What emerged was a nuanced picture, far more complex than simple success or failure.
Tourism: Building Identity, One Visitor at a Time
Studies on collective trademarks in tourism painted an encouraging picture. These shared marks help protect authenticity and signal quality for both goods and services. They define geographic boundaries for tourist experiences, ensuring visitors get consistent, high-quality encounters with local culture.
The research highlighted two critical functions. First, collective trademarks serve as information tools. They distinguish genuine products from knockoffs, reducing the time and effort consumers spend searching for authentic experiences. When tourists see the collective mark, they know they're getting the real deal.
Second, these trademarks function as reputational assets. They enable producers to invest in and manage their region's reputation collectively. Free riders who might exploit an area's good name with low-quality offerings get blocked. Everyone maintaining the mark benefits from the reputation everyone else builds.
The evidence suggests collective trademarks effectively create clusters and support regional economies focused on tourism. Communities from Lebanon to Italy have used them to transform cultural heritage into economic opportunity.
Food and Farming: Promise Meets Reality
The relationship between collective trademarks and agricultural products drew the most research attention. The findings revealed both hope and hard truths.
On the positive side, collective trademarks help farmers and food producers differentiate their products by signaling regional origin and distinctive features. This proves particularly valuable for small-scale businesses trying to enter national and international markets. Studies documented cases where collective trademarks boosted sales from purely local markets to broader commercial channels.
Consumer research showed that when people understand and trust a collective trademark, they're willing to pay premium prices, sometimes up to 30 percent more. The mark communicates quality, authenticity, and often traditional production methods that resonate with buyers seeking meaningful purchases.
But the challenges run deep. Several studies found that consumers often have low awareness of collective trademarks. If people don't recognize or understand the mark, it can't influence their purchasing decisions. Building that awareness requires sustained marketing effort and resources that small producer groups often lack.
More troubling were studies documenting outright failures. Poor management, inadequate monitoring, and weak organizational support undermined collective trademark projects in multiple countries. In one case involving cherimoya fruit in the Andean valleys, inefficient collective management led to the trademark being overtaken by better-managed private competitors. The collective mark even suffered illegal imitation because the group lacked resources to enforce their rights.
The research also revealed an uncomfortable truth about collective action: it can create elites and cliques. Strongly connected actors sometimes dominate, making it difficult for outsiders to participate and benefit. The very collectiveness that should promote inclusion can, paradoxically, exclude.
Rural Communities: Development's Double-Edged Sword
Studies examining collective trademarks specifically for rural development echoed themes from the food sector but with sharper focus on communities in the Global South.
Success stories exist. In Vila Kekeran on the Indonesian island of Bali, rural women producing scented incense used a collective trademark to boost both sales and social cohesion. The local government supported registration and helped small producers navigate the system.
Research documented how collective trademarks can upgrade value chains, reduce information gaps between consumers and producers, build regional identity, and protect biocultural heritage. These are exactly the kinds of development outcomes that communities and policymakers hope to achieve.
Yet the failures prove equally instructive. Formal intellectual property systems, including collective trademarks, often remain too aligned with global economic standards and insufficiently sensitive to local values and institutions. Communities struggle with registration complexity, enforcement costs, and organizational demands that assume resources and capabilities they simply don't have.
One study warned that poorly managed collective trademarks can even harm environmental sustainability. When price competition intensifies without proper governance, genetic diversity suffers. Farmers abandon traditional varieties for commercial monocultures, eroding the very biodiversity that makes their products special.
Arts and Crafts: Culture Versus Commerce
For artisans and craft makers, collective trademarks offer protection against mass-produced imitations. Studies documented successful cases: tonga baskets from Zambia, Oaxacan woodcarvings from Mexico, handicraft textiles from Laos, batik from Indonesia.
These communities used collective trademarks to signal cultural value, not just economic value. The marks became tools for preserving tradition and aesthetic heritage in the face of globalization's homogenizing pressures.
But research also exposed tensions inherent in commercializing culture. Collective trademarks can discourage variety and exclude certain artist groups. In one Mexican region with tremendous indigenous diversity, researchers following 45 different collective trademark projects found serious problems: uncertain policymaker support, arbitrary exclusions from mark-owning organizations, poor management, inadequate artist training, and general confusion about how collective trademarks actually work.
The question lingers: Can you protect authenticity while exploiting it commercially? And who decides which expressions of culture get marked as authentic and which don't?
Indigenous Communities: Navigating Two Worlds
A small but crucial cluster of studies examined collective trademarks specifically for indigenous peoples. The research suggested these marks might align better with indigenous values than individual intellectual property rights, which often clash with communal ownership traditions and collective knowledge systems.
The Potato Park in Peru provided a compelling case. Indigenous communities there attempted to build a collective trademark aligned with Buen Vivir principles, which emphasize community, collectivism, and harmony with nature over individual profit. The mark aimed to promote traditional knowledge and challenge conventional intellectual property frameworks.
Yet even this seemingly ideal application hit obstacles. Organizational and legal complexities prevented formal registration. The community eventually adopted an informal, unregistered collective trademark that supported their marketing but left them vulnerable to misuse.
In Finland, the Sami people considered collective trademarks to protect traditional Duoji handicrafts against cheap industrial copies and non-Sami imitations. But local authorities argued the trademark served only commercial purposes and neglected other community values, creating a standoff between cultural preservation and economic pragmatism.
The research makes clear that indigenous communities face unique challenges. Formal intellectual property systems weren't designed for them. Even collective versions of these systems require navigating legal frameworks built on fundamentally different worldviews.
Innovation: The Unexplored Frontier
The smallest thematic cluster addressed collective trademarks and innovation. A handful of studies suggested these marks can stimulate economic achievement and innovative performance in business clusters. Companies in Bulgaria's textile sector, for example, standardized marketing efforts under a collective trademark while maintaining individual identities, creating stronger shared brands.
Research from Japan, which developed a regional collective trademark system in 2006, found links between trademarks and regional innovation activities. But the studies didn't distinguish clearly between individual and collective marks in their analysis, leaving questions unanswered.
One provocative study argued for broadening our understanding of innovation itself. If we think beyond technological innovation to include social and organizational innovation, collective trademarks become tools for protecting collective innovation processes. They might support development strategies that value community creativity over individual genius.
This research direction remains underdeveloped, representing perhaps the biggest opportunity for future investigation.
The Verdict: Complicated
So do collective trademarks work as inclusive intellectual property rights? The answer is frustratingly, realistically, human: sometimes.
When conditions align, collective trademarks empower communities that would otherwise struggle against larger, wealthier competitors. They protect cultural heritage, build regional identity, enable market access, and reinforce social cohesion. They offer ways for communities to participate in global markets without abandoning collective values.
But making collective trademarks work requires significant organizational capacity, sustained commitment, adequate resources, supportive institutions, and often government assistance. These are precisely the things that many communities most needing inclusive development tools don't have.
The research revealed common pitfalls. Consumer awareness often remains low. Management and monitoring demand more resources than expected. Collective action creates opportunities for elite capture. Enforcement against imitators costs money and effort. Legal systems designed for individual rights don't accommodate collective ownership easily.
Perhaps most importantly, success depends heavily on context. What works in one place or sector may fail elsewhere. Tourism applications seem more straightforward than food applications. Urban clusters face different challenges than rural communities. Wealthy nations have institutional advantages that developing nations lack.
What We Still Don't Know
The researchers who conducted this comprehensive review were remarkably honest about gaps in our knowledge. Nearly all studies they found represented individual case studies from specific places. Only four offered comparative evidence across regions or countries.
This matters because we can't build general theories or reliable policy recommendations from isolated examples. We need systematic comparisons to understand which factors really determine success or failure. Is geography most important? Sector? Organizational form? Government support? Cultural context? We simply don't know.
The research also identified conceptual work still needed. How do we define inclusivity precisely when it comes to intellectual property? Should we consider gender perspectives more explicitly? How do different types of economic actors coordinate efficiently in collective arrangements? What role should governments play versus private organizations?
The relationship between collective trademarks and innovation especially needs development. What kinds of innovation do collective marks actually protect or promote? How do they relate to broader concepts of inclusive innovation that development scholars discuss?
Even basic empirical questions remain unanswered. We could analyze public records from trademark offices to map where collective trademarks get registered, for which products, and by which communities. We could track their economic impacts over time. We could compare formal versus informal collective marks. None of this has been done systematically.
Why This Matters Now
As globalization intensifies and economic inequality grows, the question of who benefits from knowledge and innovation becomes increasingly urgent. Intellectual property rights shape those benefits profoundly, yet current systems concentrate rewards narrowly.
Climate change, biodiversity loss, and cultural erosion create new pressures on traditional communities. The very assets these communities steward—indigenous knowledge, agricultural diversity, cultural heritage, sustainable practices—matter more than ever for humanity's collective future.
Collective trademarks won't solve these massive challenges alone. But they represent one tool that might help communities protect what's theirs while engaging with global markets on somewhat better terms. Understanding when and how they work, and crucially when and why they don't, matters for development policy worldwide.
The review makes clear that we shouldn't romanticize collective trademarks as silver bullets. They're complex tools that work only under specific conditions and require significant support to implement successfully. Promising them to communities without also providing the resources and institutions needed to make them work amounts to cruel deception.
At the same time, dismissing collective trademarks because they're difficult would abandon communities that have few other options. The goal should be honest assessment and thoughtful support, not naive optimism or cynical abandonment.
Where Do We Go From Here
For policymakers, the research suggests several priorities. First, simplify registration processes and reduce costs, especially for small communities. Second, provide organizational support and capacity building, not just legal frameworks. Third, recognize that one size doesn't fit all—different communities need different approaches.
For communities considering collective trademarks, the message is equally clear. Yes, these marks can help, but go in with eyes open. Build strong organizations first. Ensure genuine collective commitment. Plan for ongoing management and enforcement costs. Seek expert guidance. And consider whether a collective trademark truly aligns with your values and capabilities, or whether other strategies might serve you better.
For researchers, the path forward involves both deepening case study work and broadening comparative analysis. We need to understand mechanisms in specific contexts and patterns across contexts. Qualitative and quantitative methods both have roles to play.
Perhaps most importantly, we need interdisciplinary collaboration. Legal scholars, development economists, geographers, anthropologists, innovation researchers, and others must work together. Collective trademarks sit at the intersection of law, economics, culture, and geography. Understanding them requires insights from all these fields.
The Bigger Picture
Stepping back, collective trademarks raise fundamental questions about ownership, value, and development in our interconnected world. They challenge us to think beyond individual property rights toward models that respect collective creation and shared heritage.
They force us to confront tensions between preserving tradition and embracing change, between protecting culture and commercializing it, between local autonomy and global integration. These tensions don't have easy resolutions, but collective trademarks make them visible and force us to grapple with them explicitly.
In an era when much of what we value comes from collective effort—open source software, citizen science, community-managed resources, collaborative innovation—understanding how to govern and protect collective creations matters enormously. Collective trademarks offer one model, imperfect but real.
The woodcarvers in Oaxaca found a way forward. Their collective trademark didn't solve every problem, but it gave them tools to compete, to preserve their traditions, to build community, and to shape their own futures. That's not a complete victory, but it's not nothing either.
As the world grapples with questions of equity, sustainability, and cultural survival, we need every tool we can find that genuinely empowers communities to chart their own paths. Collective trademarks might be one such tool. The research shows they're worth taking seriously, worth supporting properly, and worth studying much more carefully than we have so far.
The question isn't whether collective trademarks are perfect. They're not. The question is whether they can be part of more inclusive, more equitable systems for creating and sharing value. The evidence suggests the answer is yes, but only if we commit to making them work.
Publication Details
Year of Publication: 2025
Journal: The Journal of Development Studies
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2025.2533906
About This Article
This article is based on original peer-reviewed research published in The Journal of Development Studies. All findings, thematic analyses, case examples, and conclusions presented here are derived from the original scholarly work. This article provides an accessible overview for general readership. For complete methodological details, comprehensive literature review methods, full thematic analysis, extensive references to all 60 studies reviewed, detailed discussion of research gaps, and full academic content, readers are strongly encouraged to access the original research article by clicking the DOI link above. All intellectual property rights belong to the original authors and publisher.
