The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco

IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America's Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi's jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.

Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe--a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks "creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance".

The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.

Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.

娉紙1锛夛細鏈枃閬歌嚜Economist; 11/24/2001, Vol. 361 Issue 8249, p58, 1/2p

娉紙2锛夛細鏈枃缈�(x铆)椤屽懡椤屾ā浠垮皪璞�2001骞寸湡椤宼ext 5锛堝叾涓洜2001骞寸湡椤宼ext 5鍙湁4鍊嬮鐩�锛屾墍浠ユ湰鏂囩5椤屾ā浠垮弮鐓у皪璞＄偤1999骞� Text 1鐨勭4椤屻€�)

1. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?

[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.

[B]Only the Levi鈥檚 maker can decide the prices of the jeans.

[C] The ruling has protected Levi鈥檚 from price dumping.

[D] Levi鈥檚 jeans should be sold at a high price .

2. Gucci鈥檚 success shows that _______.

[A]Gucci has successfully saved its own image.

[B] It has changed its fate with its own effort.

[C]Opening its own stores is the key to success.

[D] It should be the court鈥檚 duty to save its image.

3. The word 鈥渟pecious鈥�(line 12, paragraph 2) in the context probably means _______.

[A]responsible for oneself

[B] having too many doubts

[C] not as it seems to be

[D]raising misunderstanding

4. According to the passage, the doomed fate of Levi鈥檚 is caused by such factors except that ________.

[A]the rivals are competitive

[B]it fails to command premium prices

[C]market forces have their own rules

[D]the court fails to give some help

5. The author鈥檚 attitude towards Levi鈥檚 prospect seems to be _______.

[A] biased

[B] indifferent

[C] puzzling

[D] objective

绛旀锛欱 B C D D

绡囩珷鍓栨瀽

鏈枃鐨勭祼(ji茅)妲�(g貌u)褰㈠紡鐐烘彁鍑哄晱椤�----鍒嗘瀽鍟忛銆傚湪绗竴娈甸鍏堟彁鍑哄晱椤�,鎸囧嚭姝愭床娉曞涵灏嶇壒鏄撹臣瓒呭競鍋氬嚭鐨勮姹�銆傜浜屾鎸囧嚭鐣�(d膩ng)浜嬫柟灏嶅悓涓€浜嬩欢鐨勪笉鍚岀湅娉曞拰瑙ｉ噵銆傜涓夋鎸囧嚭鐖珫鐨勬牳蹇冨晱椤屽湪浜庢槸鍚︽噳(y墨ng)瑭插€熷姪娉曞涵閬�(d谩)鍒颁竴浜涘晢妤�(y猫)鐩殑锛屽苟浠ュ彜濂囷紙Gucci锛夌偤渚嬭鏄庣瓟妗堢偤鍚﹀畾銆傜鍥涙灏嶅埄缍紙Levi鈥檚锛夌殑鍓嶆櫙鍋氬嚭浜嗚⿻鍍瑰拰鍒嗘瀽銆�

瑭炲尟娉ㄩ噵

seethingadj.娌搁ò鐨�, 鐏啽鐨�

foul adj.涓嬫祦鐨勶紝绮椾織鐨勶細

segment v.鍒嗗壊

innovation n.鏀归潻, 鍓�(chu脿ng)鏂�

specious adj. 浼兼槸鑰岄潪鐨�; 浼间箮姝ｇ⒑鐨�锛屼絾瀵﹂殯鍗绘槸璎鐨�

arbitrage v. 濂楀尟, 濂楀埄浜ゆ槗

with a vengeance 鐚涚儓鍦�;妤靛害鍦�

licensing n.娉ㄥ唺鐧昏

discount n.鎶樻墸

resort vi.姹傚姪, 瑷磋

premium n.椤嶅璨荤敤, 鐛庨噾, 鐛庤碁, 淇濋毆璨�, (璨ㄥ梗鍏岀従(xi脿n)鐨�)璨兼按

闆ｅ彞绐佺牬

1.Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice.

涓婚珨鍙ュ紡锛歀evi Strauss persuaded that 鈥�

绲�(ji茅)妲�(g貌u)鍒嗘瀽锛歵hat涔嬪悗鏄竴鍊嬭硴瑾炲緸鍙�锛沚y涔嬪悗鐨勫彞瀛愬仛浼撮毃鐙€瑾炰締淇＞璩撹獮寰炲彞锛涜硴瑾炲緸鍙ヤ腑which鍙堝紩灏�(d菐o)浜嗕竴鍊嬮潪闄愬埗鎬у畾瑾炲緸鍙ャ€�

鍙ュ瓙璀枃锛氬埄缍�•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃浣挎硶搴浉淇＄壒鏄撹臣鎶婂埄缍墰浠旀湇鑸囩殏绮�锛岄钑夌瓑鏀惧湪涓€璧峰粔鍍归姺鍞€欎竴鍋氭硶浣垮叾褰㈣薄鍙楁悕锛屽搧鐗屽児浣嶄篃鍥犳鍙楀埌浜嗗奖闊匡紝閫欏嫝蹇呮渻浣跨敘(ch菐n)鍝佺己涔忔柊鎰�锛屾渶绲傛笡灏戞秷璨昏€呯殑閬告搰銆�

椤岀洰鍒嗘瀽

1锛庣瓟妗堢偤B锛屽爆浜嬪绱�(x矛)绡€(ji茅)椤�銆傚師鏂囧皪鎳�(y墨ng)淇℃伅鏄€溾€hould not be allowed 鈥� to sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.鈥濇剰鎬濇槸鈥滃彧鏈変簨鍏堢稉(j墨ng)閬庣墰浠旇げ鐢熺敘(ch菐n)鍟嗙殑鍚屾剰鎵嶈兘鎵撴姌閵峰敭?锛佺瑪娆犺０鎸ョ尒顙絘(ch菐n)鍟嗘墠鑳芥焙瀹氬児鏍�锛屾垜鍊戜笉寰楄€岀煡銆�

2锛庣瓟妗堢偤B锛屽爆鎺ㄧ悊鍒ゆ柗椤�銆傛枃涓彁鍒板晱椤岀殑瀵﹁唱(zh矛)鏄€渨hether it is the job of the courts to help them do this.鈥濆悗鍙堜互鍙ゅ(Gucci) 鈥渟aved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.鈥濈偤渚嬶紝瑾槑瀹冪殑鎴愬姛骞朵笉鏄ù璜告硶搴�锛岃€屾槸閫氶亷鑷韩鐨勫姫鍔涘拰鍢楄│銆�

3锛庣瓟妗堢偤C 锛屽爆鐚滆椤屻€傜浜屾闁嬮牠鎻愬嚭浜嗗埄缍叕鍙革紙Levi鈥檚锛夊皪鐗规槗璩硷紙Tesco锛夌殑鎸囪铂(z茅)锛屽悗鍙堟彁鍑轰簡鐗规槗璩肩殑鍙嶉鎰忚锛屽墠鍚庡叐鑰呬箣闁撶殑瑙€榛炴噳(y墨ng)瑭叉槸鐩稿弽鐨�銆傚緸鑰屽彲鐚滃嚭瑭茶鐨勫惈缇┿€�

4锛庣瓟妗堢偤D锛屽爆鎺ㄧ悊鍒ゆ柗椤屻€傚師鏂囧皪鎳�(y墨ng)淇℃伅鏄渶鍚庝竴娈�銆�

5锛庣瓟妗堢偤D锛屽爆鎯呮劅鎱�(t脿i)搴﹂銆備綔鑰呮矑鏈変换浣曞亸闋楃殑闂¤堪鏁村€嬩簨浠�銆�

鍙冭€冭鏂�

娉曞涵鐨勮姹轰娇娑堣不鑰呮劅鍒扮京鎲ゅ～鑶�锛屽緢澶氳嚜鐢辫部(m脿o)鏄撹€呬篃鎰熷埌鎲ゆ啢涓嶅钩銆�11鏈�20鏃�锛屾瓙娲叉硶搴皪鐗规槗璩�(Tesco)閫欏鑻卞湅閫ｉ帠瓒呭競鍋氬嚭浜嗗垽姹�锛岀壒鏄撹臣涓嶈兘閫氶亷姝愮洘涔嬪鐨勬笭閬撻€�(j矛n)鍙ｅ埄缍�•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃鐢熺敘(ch菐n)鐨勭墰浠旇げ锛屽苟涓旀矑鏈変簨鍏堢稉(j墨ng)閬庣墰浠斿埗閫犲晢鐨勫悓鎰�锛屼笉鑳芥墦鎶橀姺鍞�銆傚叿鏈夎鍒烘剰鍛崇殑鏄�锛岄€欓爡鍒ゆ焙鏄牴鎿�(j霉)姝愮洘鍟嗘(bi膩o)娉曞仛鍑虹殑锛岀洰鐨勫湪浜庝繚璀�(h霉)鏈湴鑰岄潪缇庡湅鍒堕€犲晢鍏嶅彈鍍规牸鍌鹃姺鐨勭礇鎿�銆傚叾瑙€榛炴槸鎳�(y墨ng)瑭插厑瑷变换浣曚竴瀹舵搧鏈夎嚜宸卞搧鐗岀殑鍏徃绲﹁嚜宸辩殑鐢�(ch菐n)鍝佸畾浣�锛屽垎灞仼鍚堢殑甯傚牬锛屾瘮濡傚埄缍墰浠旇げ锛屽畠灏辨噳(y墨ng)瑭茶薄鍙ゅ(Gucci)鐗屾墜鎻愬寘涓€妯ｅ敭鍍规槀璨�銆�

鍒╃董•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃浣挎硶搴浉淇＄壒鏄撹臣鎶婂埄缍墰浠旇げ鑸囩殏绮夛紝棣欒晧绛夋斁鍦ㄤ竴璧峰粔鍍归姺鍞€欎竴鍋氭硶浣垮叾褰㈣薄鍙楁悕锛屽搧鐗屽児浣嶄篃鍥犳鍙楀埌浜嗗奖闊�锛岄€欏嫝蹇呮渻浣跨敘(ch菐n)鍝佺己涔忔柊鎰忥紝鏈€绲傛笡灏戞秷璨昏€呯殑閬告搰銆傛秷璨昏€呭拰鐗规槗璩煎嵒瑾�(r猫n)鐐哄埄缍叕鍙歌矊浼兼湁鐞嗗鍓囦笉鐒�銆傜壒鏄撹臣瑾�(r猫n)鐐哄畠鍙槸寰炵編鍦嬪拰姝愭床閵峰敭鍒╃董鐗涗粩瑜插瓨鍦ㄧ殑鍍规牸宸児涓鍒�銆傞€欐槸涓€绋湪閲戣瀺甯傚牬涓婂ぉ澶╅兘鏈冮€�(j矛n)琛屼笂鐧捐惉娆�锛屽苟浣挎秷璨昏€呯湡姝ｅ彈鐩婄殑鍟嗘キ(y猫)琛岀偤銆傜壒鏄撹臣涓€鍛ㄤ箣鍏�(n猫i)浠ヤ綆浜庡埄缍�•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃鎺堟瑠(qu谩n)灏堣常搴椾竴鍗婄殑鍍规牸閵峰敭15锛�000姊濈墰浠旇げ銆傝矤(f霉)璨�(z茅)鐗规槗璩煎叏鐞冮潪椋熷搧椤炰富绠″厠閲屾柉寤�•鍏嬬緟鏂獚(r猫n)鐐洪€欎竴瑁佹焙鏈冨姞澶х敘(ch菐n)鐢熲€滄瓙娲插牎澹樷€濈殑棰�(f膿ng)闅�銆�

閫欏牬鐖珫閭勫皣绻肩簩(x霉)涓嬪幓锛屽苟涓斾笉鍠彧灞€闄愪簬浼戦枒鏈嶈锛堝璜�•澶ц(w猫i)澶氬か棣欐按鍒堕€犲晢涔熷拰鍒╃董•鏂壒鍕炴柉鑱�(li谩n)鎵嬭ù瑷燂級銆傞€欎竴鍟忛瀵﹂殯涓婁笉鍦ㄤ簬鍝佺墝鍟嗗搧鏄惁鎳�(y墨ng)瑭叉帶鍒堕姺鍞柟寮忎締缍(h霉)鍏跺舰璞�锛岃€屽湪浜庢槸鍚︽噳(y墨ng)瑭插€熷姪娉曞涵渚嗗公鍔╁畠鍊戦仈(d谩)鍒伴€欎竴鐩殑銆傝ū鍙稉(j墨ng)鐕熺鐞嗘澗鏁ｅ苟涓斿湪鎶樻墸搴楅噷闋婚牷鍑虹従(xi脿n)姣€澹炰簡鍙ゅ閫欎竴鎰忓ぇ鍒╁搧鐗屾湇椋剧殑褰㈣薄锛屼絾瀹冨苟娌掓湁瑷磋娉曞涵锛岃€屾槸閫氶亷涓鑸囩涓夋柟渚涙噳(y墨ng)鍟嗙殑鍚堝悓锛屾洿濂界殑鎺у埗鍟嗗搧閵峰敭锛屼互鍙婇枊灏堣常搴楃瓑鏂瑰紡鎸芥晳浜嗚嚜宸辩殑鍛介亱?锛孎(xi脿n)鍦ㄥ凡缍�(j墨ng)寰堥洠鎵惧埌鎵撴姌閵峰敭鍙ゅ鐢�(ch菐n)鍝佺殑鍦版柟浜�銆�

鍝佺墝灏堝瑾�(r猫n)鐐哄埄缍�•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃姝ｅ湪閫愭鍠け甯傚牬鍗犳湁鐜�锛岃€岃畵姝ョ郸Diesel閫欐ǎ鐨勭鐖皪鎵�,瀹冪殑瀵﹀姏宸蹭笉瓒充互浣垮畠灏嶆孩鍍瑰叿鏈夋帉鎺ц兘鍔�銆傚湪甯傚牬姗熷埗鐨勪綔鐢ㄤ笅锛岃薄鍒╃董閫欐ǎ鐨勪竴鑸搧鐗屽緢鏈夊彲鑳芥渻閫愭几娑堝け锛岃鏂扮殑鍝佺墝鎵€浠ｆ浛銆傜敱浜庢硶搴皪鍏跺児鏍兼湁淇濊(h霉)浣滅敤锛屽埄缍�•鏂壒鍕炴柉鍏徃鍙兘鏈冨缍寔涓€娈垫檪闁�锛屼絾鏄硶搴嵒鐒℃硶骞畠鍐嶆垚鐐虹煡鍚嶅搧鐗屼簡銆�