390 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM innovations, logistics innovations and institutional innovations. Since most innovations in the sector are configured as abstract ideas, they cannot be protected by IP laws. In this sense, time plays an essential role in the way innovations are implemented, since not all firms operate in the same way. This leads to some enterprises being early adopters of innovations, while others copy their competitors and the rest, who are the most conservative, adopt the innovations when there are no other options (Hjalager, 2001). Hjalager (ibidem) points out that all initiatives in the tourism sector are quite visible and difficult to protect, making imitation practically inevitable. Factors such as education of the staff in tourism enterprises, seasonal labour turnover and the lack of a specialised career system, minimise the chances of innovation in the sector, which is relegated to big firms. All of the above, in addition to the inevitable need for innovation, necessarily lead SMEs, which dominate the sector, to an “imitate or die” situation deriving in practices that border unfair competition. The limits, however, are even blurrier when it comes to the tourism sector since many of the innovations revolve around general and abstract ideas, which cannot be protected through IP law; only the UC protects innovators. In an arguably difficult scenario with no exclusive rights in place, the application of the “freedom to imitate” principle shall prevail over any action against acts that may cause confusion. Without any empirical evidence in this regard, from a theoretical perspective, this can only lead to two possible outcomes. The first is where the firms get demotivated because of imitation and stop innovating. The second is where the innovative firms apply highly dynamic innovation strategies, in a way that imitators could reproduce certain innovative solution only when its effects had been exploited by its original creator. This situation would force the innovator to separate itself from the imitator through new innovation. Such behaviour would give place to a cycle similar to the trickle-down effect first described in the Veblen-Jhering model, but modified by innovators such as McCracken for sectors like fashion (McCracken, 1990), in a way that fits perfectly for the tourism sector. Up to this point and for the purposes of this chapter, there are two possible scenarios for the imitator: 1. to breach the limit and result in an unfair act which may cause confusion; or 2. to imitate within the limits established by the UC law. In the first scenario, the legal system would take care of the unlawful
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==