Operational Intellectual Property Governance for EU Game Developers: A Reputation-Oriented, Evidence-Based Model for Cross-Border Enforcement

Abstract

EU game developers increasingly operate in platform-mediated markets where distribution, community management, merchandising, and monetisation are inseparable from governance. In this environment, intellectual property is not only a legal perimeter but also an asset, a consumer trust signal, and an organisational capability that must be demonstrated through repeatable controls and measurable outcomes. The risk context is structural rather than episodic, as counterfeit and pirated trade is estimated at about USD 467 billion in 2021, around 2.3% of global imports, which intensifies cross-border brand abuse pressures. The aim of this study is to design an evidence-based operational model for EU game studios that embeds IP governance into reputation and compliance scoring, links legal requirements to measurable indicators, and enables scalable enforcement through platform routing and standardised evidence packs. The study applies qualitative doctrinal and policy analysis combined with operational design reasoning. It maps enforcement baselines to monitoring, takedown, litigation readiness, and confidentiality preservation, then builds an indicator architecture from asset and rights inventories to prevention, detection, and response metrics. Scoring combines an ordinal maturity rubric for governance indicators with normalised quantitative metrics to control for scale effects and to preserve cross-jurisdiction comparability. The model translates abstract reputation drivers into auditable IP signals and shows that IP becomes reputationally meaningful when measured as stable, trackable performance. It delivers a core indicator dictionary that reduces subjectivity by specifying definitions and evidence expectations, strengthening enforcement readiness and due diligence credibility. The framework also provides a time-sequenced incident response playbook that aligns evidence preservation, platform routing, and communication actions to support trust recovery after IP crises. Future studies should validate the scoring system against real incident outcomes, test calibration choices across jurisdictions, and assess whether improved evidence readiness measurably reduces recurrence and accelerates takedown cycle times.