WO2002001513A1

WO2002001513A1 - Method to check the authenticity of the marking of a product

Info

Publication number: WO2002001513A1
Application number: PCT/IB2000/001544
Authority: WO
Inventors: Claudio Selva; Maurizio Platone
Original assignee: Sys S.P.A.
Priority date: 2000-06-28
Filing date: 2000-10-25
Publication date: 2002-01-03
Also published as: AU2000278123A1; ITBI20000001A1; ITBI20000001A0; EP1297499A1

Abstract

The invention concerns a method to check the authenticity of a marking formed by one or more distinctive signs applied in a casual order onto a support. Before the markings are placed on the market, one first of all detects macroimages thereof which include both the data concerning said distinctive signs and the data concerning the structure of the support onto which said signs are applied. Said macroimages are subsequently recorded and stored as original macroimages into a data base and, after the markings have been placed on the market, said macroimages are compared to the macroimage of a generic product put on the market, of which one wishes to check the authenticity.

Description

"METHOD TO CHECK THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE MARKING OF A

PRODUCT"

* * * * *

The present invention concerns a method to check the authenticity of a marking and, in particular, a marking applied onto a product or onto a label thereof. By the term "marking" is meant, hereinafter, the identification of any product under the name or under other trademarks of the producer, independently from the fact that the distinctive signs forming said marking may be applied directly onto the product itself, or onto a label applied on the product.

As well known, the problem of counterfeiting first-class products has now become a mass phenomenon which involves considerable economic problems. Said phenomenon has developed even more with the recent high increase in the decentralization and delocalization of the production, due to the fact that the actual authorized tertiary producer - who disposes of the entire production know-how of the product - is in a position to spread on the market counterfeited products which are fully identical to the original ones and can thus by no means be distinguished therefrom, to the point of being often sold through the same trade channels of the original products. The various attempts made so far to put an end to this phenomenon, or at least control the same, have all followed a same approach, namely to mark either the products of which one wishes to prevent the counterfeiting, or the labels applied thereon, with identification systems which can hardly be reproduced by the counterfeiters. Among such systems to identify the products or their labels, one may recall: silver threads incorporating a magnetic band, microinscriptions, watermark paper, oleograms, pigments sensitive to the light of a Wood lamp, fluorescent inks, laser codings and the like; the authenticity of such identification systems can be checked at the sale points. It is thereby possible, at least in theory, to verify the presence in the different sale points of counterfeited products, or of products marked by falsified labels, and to be thus led back to the producer who has put them on the market. In actual fact, experience has taught that the benefits of such systems, even the most sophisticated ones, are - in the best of assumptions - only temporary. In fact, the current technological development makes it possible, even for a small producer, to have a fairly easy and prompt access to the production processes adopted for such "special" identification systems which will thus, sooner or later, be exactly reproduced by the counterfeiter. These systems consequently tend to quickly loose their identification properties, making it even more difficult to recognize any counterfeitnesses or imitations, seen that counterfeited products, also quite similar or even identical to the original ones, can be marked with equally well counterfeited markings, so that it becomes practically impossible to distinguish the goods rightfully spread on the market by the legitimate producer from those which have been counterfeited.

The object of the present invention is to thus supply a new method to check the authenticity of the marking of any type of product, namely a method which does not involve the above drawbacks and which allows to distinguish, in a positively unequivocal manner, an original marking from a counterfeited marking.

To obtain this result, and after having thoroughly studied the different existing solutions, the inventors of the present invention have reached the conclusion of having to totally abandon the conceptual approach followed up- to-date - namely, creating a marking which is more and more difficult to reproduce - seen that such an approach to the problem, besides involving continuously increasing costs for the marking operation to be carried out on the products, also involved an insurmountable basic drawback. In fact, if it is possible for a given producer to mark his own products with markings including sophisticated identification systems, it cannot be seen why - as besides confirmed up to now by practical experience - it should not be possible, at least on principle, for any counterfeiter equipped with appropriate technological means to equally reach the same result. The inventors of the present invention, thus abandoning the traditional approach to the problem, have instead concentrated their attention on the possibility to trace, in a marking conceived in a fully normal way, any possible intrinsic elements which could make said marking - though apparently equal to all the other markings of the same series - unique and distinguishable. Namely, the inventors have searched for a sort of "fingerprint" on the marking, which could be detected by fast and economic means and through which it may be possible to unmistakably reckon the authenticity of the product marked thereby. The above search - probably thanks to the very fact of having been pointed in a fully opposite direction to that followed up-to-date - has soon given extremely positive results, on the basis of which the present invention has finally been conceived. The invention thus concerns a method to check the authenticity of a marking - said marking being of the type in which one or more distinctive signs are casually applied onto a support - characterized in that it comprises the following steps: before the marking is placed on the market: a) - a detection step, in which a macroimage of the marking is detected, said macroimage including data concerning said distinctive signs as well as data concerning the structure of the support onto which said signs are applied; b) - a recording step, in which said macroimage is stored as original macroimage into a data base; and after the marking has been placed on the market: c) - a checking step, in which the macroimage of the marking of a generic product, of which one wishes to check the authenticity, is compared to the original macroimages stored in said data base. . ,

Further characteristics and advantages of the present invention will anyhow be more evident from the following description of the method to check the authenticity of a marking according to the invention, made with reference to a flow diagram of said method, shown on the accompanying drawing. As already mentioned above, the fundamental concept lying at the basis of the present invention is to trace, in a traditional marking, the eventual intrinsic elements allowing - without having to adopt special and costly identification systems - to detect the uniqueness and unrepeatability of that specific marking, making it thus possible to very rapidly and easily obtain a positive identification thereof.

Such intrinsic elements of the marking have been traced and identified, by the inventors, in the combination between the design of the basic structure of the support and the design of the distinctive signs which form the marking, said combination being fully casual and different for each single marking. It is in fact quite evident how each physical support for a marking, whether consisting of the actual product or of a label applied thereon, has its own physical structure. To the naked eye, said structure often appears to be substantially homogeneous, but its lack of homogeneity can be easily placed in evidence if one is able to obtain a sufficiently enlarged image thereof by means of a suitable optical detection device. It is equally evident that the distinctive signs of the marking applied on said support, independently from the application methods - as, for example, printing, thermal transfer printing, ink jet printing, printing with diplomatic or fluorescent inks, hot-heading printing, rotary heading printing, pressure printing, silk-screen printing, oleograph printing, application of bar codes, laser codings, punching, overprint, chemical etching, weaving, embroidery, hot-glueing, and the like - are positioned over said structure in a totally casual way, forming therewith a fully unique and unrepeatable combination design, visible when being examined at an appropriate magnifying ratio and in suitable lighting conditions.

In fact, according to the invention, the special combination design formed between the structure of the support and the distinctive signs of the marking, is detected by using a photomacrography technique, that is, taking a photograph on an enlarged scale in respect of the 1 : 1 scale. The required magnifying ratio varies according to the type of support used; however, except in special cases, said ratio is normally included in the range between 2 and 10 magnifications and, preferably, in the range between 5 and 7 magnifications. Moreover, always according to the invention, the aforecited photomacrography has to be taken in the most suitable lighting conditions for the marking, to show up as far as possible the structure of the support on which the marking is applied.

According to an example of wide practical application, in which the marking is applied onto a textile label - see flow diagram shown on the drawing - the label E is lighted both with a light source C, which lights up its front surface onto which the marking is applied, and with a light source D which lights up the rear surface of the label showing up, in transparency, the weave of the fabric forming the label. With a suitable optical shooting apparatus A, for instance a videocamera or a photocamera, it is thus possible to take the image of the label E with the required magnifying ratio.

The image thus obtained - which, as a result of the above procedure, will include both the data concerning the image of the support structure and the data concerning the image of the distinctive sign of the marking, as well as the space relationship between the first and second data - is finally stored into a record file or data base B, equipped with retrieval and comparison systems, to allow comparing the image thus stored with other images of the same type, for the purposes and with the modes described hereunder.

Such an image will be defined hereinafter as "original macroimage" and, independently from the detection techniques, which may indifferently be of the analog or digital type, it will preferably be stored in digital format, so as to be able to carry out quick and easy transfers of the macroimages by telematic means, as well as to allow a quick comparison between images, through suitable computer programs.

The macroimages thus collected can be catalogued in the data base B in a casual order, or according to alphanumeric codes allowing to divide the data bank into a plurality of homogeneous sectors, for example according to the date or production site, or even according to a sequential alphanumeric code. In this last case, such a code preferably corresponds to a code previously applied onto the label together with the marking. The choice between the different aforecited storage modes depends on the overall dimensions of each single data base, and/or on the searching times deemed optimal to gain access to said base and compare any external data with the data stored therein. Once the macroimages of the single labels have thus been detected, coded and stored, said labels can be used to mark the products identified therewith, by being applied thereon in a fully conventional way.

When an operator required to check any counterfeitings needs to effect a sample control on the origin - whether lawful or unlawful - of a stock of products, he will simply have to take with a portable photocamera a macroimage of the labels applied on the products of which he needs to check the authenticity, adopting a method of detection including steps equal or similar to those followed to obtain the original macroimages.

The macroimages thus taken from the different labels of the checked products are subsequently compared with those stored in the data base, to check the identity or non-identity thereof, thereby allowing to directly and positively ascertain the authenticity of the marking or, viceversa, the counterfeiting thereof. It is in fact evident that a response on the authenticity of the marking, and thus of the product marked thereby, will be obtained only in the case of a total identity of all the details of the combination design appearing in the compared macroimages, while any even slight differences between the two macroimages will form a positive index of counterfeiting of the marking.

The comparison between the macroimages taken from a sample drawn on the market and the original macroimages stored in the data base B, is carried out with a different comparison process, according to the type of coding adopted in preparing the data base. In particular: the scanning will be sequential over the entire data base if the data has been stored without any coding; the scanning will be sequential merely on predetermined sectors of the data base according to the product manufacturing data, such as production date and site, or other like variables detected on the label; or, finally, the access will be direct, using the code of the desired macroimage, when the macroimages have been recorded and stored under a single alphanumeric identification code of their own.

This last method is of course preferable when using a particularly extensive data base, as it happens in the case of products sold on a large scale, and if one simultaneously wishes to reduce to a minimum the times required for the operations to compare and check the authenticity of a marking.

For clearness of exposition reference has been made, in the previous description, to the very frequent case in which the marking is applied onto a label of textile material. Nonetheless, the method according to the present invention is by no means limited to such a specific case and can thus be adopted in all those circumstances in which a marking is applied onto a label or directly onto a product, whatever the material used to form said label or product, provided that a structure of the support can be placed in evidence and that said structure has a random space relationship with the marking.

The technique adopted to take the image of the marking and, in particular, the lighting thereof, will obviously vary according to the different types of supports. For this purpose use can be made, for example, of different light sources (white light, infrared light, monochromatic or polarized light) and of different light-screening techniques (colour screens, interference screens, polarized screens, correction screens, antireflection screens, and the like), and it is moreover possible to vary the angle of incidence and the setting of the light source or sources, so as to place in better evidence the structure of the marking support and the combination design of said structure with the distinctive sign of the marking. According to the higher or lower transparency of the support, this result may be achieved by mere transparency, or by placing in evidence the surface pattern of the support, or else by combining these two techniques, always remaining within the scope of the present invention. Particularly homogeneous supports - thus not apt to show up an intrinsic differentiated structure, not even as a macroimage - can equally be used within the scope of the present invention, by being subjected to a previous surface treatment allowing to place in evidence a structure inherent in the support, for example through a mechanical machining or through a selective etching, or else by providing the support with an additional layer having a non-homogeneous structure and being permanently applied thereon, for instance by rolling, glueing, coextrusion, or other like processes.

Alternatively, already during production of the support, one may provide to add to the material forming the same - whether it be a plastic material, a papery or mixed material, a textile fiber or a metallic material - suitable fillers, such as microparticles, threads and other special similar products, apt to form a surface design quite visible on a macroimage, namely a non-homogeneous basic structure of the support, in the sense already pointed out further above. When reference is made, in the previous description, to a "marking", or to a "marking macroimage", such definitions are of course meant to include even a single "portion" of the marking. According to the present invention, in fact, in order to determine the authenticity of a marking, it is simply necessary to check whether the combination design formed by a marking and by the support structure on which said marking is applied, is identical - or is not identical - to the "sample" of the combination design originally stored in the data base, i.e. before the products or the labels on which said marking is applied have been put on the market. Said checking can thus indifferently be carried out over the entire marking, or merely over a portion thereof, according to the convenience from the practical point of view. Furthermore, the original macroimage and the macroimage being checked need not have the same size, it being already sufficient for them to have at least a sufficiently large area in common. In order to shorten the comparison times, it is finally possible to provide for specific centering marks to be placed on the markings, such centering marks allowing to speed up the procedure of collimation of the respective macroimages. The invention has been described with specific reference to the problem of recognizing the authenticity of a marking, where said marking often coincides with the trade mark of the producer. It is however understood that the invention can be applied also in the case of having to simply recognize the authenticity of a product having no trade mark, in which case the marking can be limited even to a simple sign (for instance, a circle or a square) which identifies a particular portion of the support. In this case, the combination design will be provided by the special boundary which the aforecited sign is apt to define on the structure of the support. From the previous description it is clearly evident how the present invention has fully reached the intended object. In fact, through the macroimage of each single branding in suitable lighting conditions, the method according to the invention allows to place in evidence a unique and unrepeatable design deriving from the casual combination of the design of the support structure with the identification marks of the actual branding. Said macroimage can be stored into a proper data base and be subsequently compared with the macroimage of the combination design of brandings drawn by way of sample on the market; this will allow to check - according to the exactness, or non-exactness, of said macroimage with the corresponding original macroimage stored in the data base - whether the brandings found on the market are genuine or forged.

Claims

CLAIMS 1 ) Method to check the authenticity of a marking - said marking being of the type in which one or more distinctive signs are casually applied onto a support - characterized in that it comprises the following steps: before the marking is placed on the market: a) - a detection step, in which a macroimage of the marking is detected, said macroimage including data concerning said distinctive signs as well as data concerning the structure of the support onto which said signs are applied; b) - a recording step, in which said macroimage is stored as original macroimage into a data base; and after the marking has been placed on the market: c) - a checking step, in which the macroimage of the marking of a generic product, of which one wishes to check the authenticity, is compared to the original macroimages stored in said data base. 2) Method as in Claim 1 ) wherein, in the detection step a), the macroimage of the marking is taken with a videocamera or with a photocamera.

3) Method as in Claim 2), wherein said macroimage has a magnifying ratio included in the range between 2 and 1 0 magnifications and, preferably, in the range between 5 and 7 magnifications.

4) Method as in Claim 3), wherein said support has an unhomogeneous structure, visible in a macroimage having said magnifying ratio, said structure being intrinsic or imparted by inserting suitable fillers into the material forming the support. 5) Method as in any one of Claims 2) to 4) wherein, in the detection step a), the marking is lighted by direct light and/or by transparency.

6) Method as in Claim 3) wherein, in the detection step a), use is made of light sources comprising white light, infrared light, monochromatic or polarized light, eventually screened. 7) Method as in any one of Claims 1 ) to 6) wherein, in the recording step b), the macroimages are randomly recorded. 8) Method as in Claim 7) wherein, in the checking step c), the comparison is carried out sequentially on all the macroimages stored in the data base and the marking of a generic product is reckoned to be authentical if the macroimage of said product turns out to be identical to at least one of the macroimages stored in said data base.

9) Method as in any one of Claims 1 ) to 6) wherein, in the recording step b), the macroimages are recorded under one or more identification codes of a production lot.

1 0) Method as in Claim 9) wherein, in the checking step c), the comparison is carried out sequentially only on the macroimages in the data base having the coding of the production lot corresponding to that of the checked product, and the marking of said product is reckoned to be authentical if its macroimage turns out to be identical to at least one of the macroimages stored in said data base and having said coding. 1 1 ) Method as in any one of Claims 1 ) to 6) wherein, in the recording step b), the macroimages are recorded under an identification code for each single marking, said code forming part of the distinctive sign of said marking.

1 2) Method as in Claim 1 1 ) wherein, in the checking step c), the comparison is carried out only on the macroimage in the data base having the same code appearing on the checked marking, and the marking of the checked product is reckoned to be authentical if its macroimage turns out to be identical to the corresponding macroimage stored in said data base.

1 3) Method as in any one of the previous Claims wherein, in the checking step c), the macroimage of the generic product, of which one wishes to check the authenticity, is detected with a portable photocamera, adopting methods of detection which are equal or similar to those adopted to take the original macroimages.

14) Method as in any one of the previous Claims, wherein said macroimage is stored in a digital format. 1 5) Method as in any one of the previous Claims, wherein the data concerning the macroimage of the checked marking is transferred by telematics onto said data base to carry out the comparing operations.

AMENDED CLAIMS

[received by the International Bureau on 26 October 2001 (26.10.01); original claim 1 amended; remaining claims unchanged (1 page)]

1 ) Method to check the authenticity of a marking - said marking being of the type in which one or more distinctive signs are applied onto a support with a casual positioning - characterised in that it comprises the following steps: before the marking is placed on the market: a) a detection step, in which a macroimage of the combination design formed between the design of the basic structure of said support and the design of the superimposed distinctive signs is detected, said macroimage including data concerning said distinctive signs as well as data concerning the structure of the support onto which said signs are applied; b) a recording step, in which said macroimage is stored as original - macroimage into a data base; and after the marking has been placed on the market: c) a checking step, in which the macroimage of the marking of a generic product, of which one wishes to check the authenticity, is compared to the original macroimage stored in said data base.

2) Method as in Claim 1 ) wherein, in the detection step a), the macroimage of the marking is taken with a videocamera or with a photocamera. 3) Method as in Claim 2), wherein said macroimage has a magnifying ratio included in the range between 2 and 1 0 magnifications and, preferably, in the range between 5 and 7 magnifications.

4) Method as in Claim 3), wherein said support has an unhomogeneous structure, visible in a macroimage having said magnifying ratio, said structure being intrinsic or imparted by inserting suitable fillers into the material forming the support.

5) Method as in any one of Claims 2) to 4) wherein, in the detection step a), the marking is lighted by direct light and/or by transparency.

6) Method as in Claim 3) wherein, in the detection step a), use is made of light sources comprising white light, infrared light, monochromatic or polarized light, eventually screened.

7) Method as in any one of Claims 1 ) to 6) wherein, in the recording step b), the macroimages are randomly recorded. STATEMENT ACCORDING TO ART. 19(1) Claim 1 has been amended, inserting in the same the features disclosed in the description at page 4 lines 8-10. The subsequent claims 2-15 remain unchanged.

Further to the amendments made to claim 1, such claim results clearly distinguished from the citations of the prior art contained in the International Search Report of 16 March 2001. In fact all the documents cited in such report refer to the detection of a particular (physical or chemical-physical) intrinsic feature of the product of which the authenticity is to be verified or of another body which is added or incorporated to the product, which feature must be detected at microscopic level. None of these opposed references has thus disclosed the inventive idea of the present application to detect the casual combination design formed between the design of the basic structure of the product and the design of distinctive signs printed thereon. This combination design, which can never be reproduced in an identical way, can be detected with a macroimage technique, which technique results more economic and of quicker and simpler application in respect of the prior art microscopic technique. Finally said combination design, on the contrary of the microscopic pattern of the prior art, is not subjected to variations due to mechanical stresses, wear or other external phenomenons to which the product is subjected.

In particular among the cited documents: US-5 354 097 discloses a pattern of nonwoven material embedded in a transparent material, which pattern must be incorporated to the article secured against fraud; WO-97 24699 discloses a method for detecting a distinguishing physical or chemical intrinsic characteristic of a restricted area of an article through a micro-topography; US-5 521 984 discloses a method comprising the steps of selecting a microsite of an article, recording a microscopic image of a unique pattern of features at said site, said unique pattern being an intrinsic characteristic of said microsite; EP-570 162 discloses a method wherein the microscopic reflectivity characteristic of a grain seal site is detected; said site is a portion of the article surface or is formed as a layer deposited on the article; US-4 785 290 discloses a system for authenticating an article, wherein a varying translucency pattern of a reference space of the article is detected.