1 TROUSER SUIT

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

　　Dateline: New York

         IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething¹ with anger and many a free trader crying foul². On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided³ 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 maker⁴. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark⁵ 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 specious⁶. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging⁷ 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 Fortress⁸ Europe with a vengeance⁹".

　　The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit¹⁰ 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 licensing¹¹ 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 hipper¹² rivals such as Diesel¹³, is no longer strong enough to command premium¹⁴ 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.

　　--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　注(1)：本文选自Economist; 11/24/2001, Vol. 361 Issue 8249, p58, 1/2p

　　注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象2001年真题text 5(其中因2001年真题text 5只有4个题目，所以本文第5题模仿参照对象为1999年 Text 1的第4题。)

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

　　[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.

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

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

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

　　2.Gucci’s 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’s duty to save its image.

　　3.The word “specious”(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 doomed¹⁵ fate of Levi’s 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’s attitude towards Levi’s prospect¹⁶ seems to be _______.

　　[A] biased¹⁷

　　[B] indifferent

　　[C] puzzling

　　[D] objective

　　答案：BBCDD

　　篇章剖析

　　本文的结构形式为提出问题----分析问题。在第一段首先提出问题,指出欧洲法庭对特易购超市做出的裁决。第二段指出当事方对同一事件的不同看法和解释。第三段指出争论的核心问题在于是否应该借助法庭达到一些商业目的，并以古奇(Gucci)为例说明答案为否定。第四段对利维(Levi’s)的前景做出了评价和分析。

　　词汇注释

　　seething [`si:TIN] adj.沸腾的, 火热的

　　foul [faJl]adj.下流的，粗俗的：

　　segment [5se^mEnt]v.分割

　　innovation [InE5veIF(E)n] n.改革, 创新

　　specious [5spi:FEs] adj. 似是而非的; 似乎正确的，但实际却是谬误的

　　arbitrage¹⁸ [5B:bItrIdV] v. 套汇, 套利交易

　　with a vengeance [5vendVEns]猛烈地;极度地

　　licensing [5laIsEnsIN] n.注册登记

　　discount [5dIskaJnt] n.折扣

　　resort [rI5zC:t] vi.求助, 诉诸

　　premium [5pri:mIEm] n.额外费用, 奖金, 奖赏, 保险费, (货币兑现的)贴水

　　难句突破

　　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.

　　主体句式：Levi Strauss persuaded that …

　　结构分析：that之后是一个宾语从句；by之后的句子做伴随状语来修饰宾语从句；宾语从句中which又引导了一个非限制性定语从句。

　　句子译文：利维•斯图尔斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利维牛仔服与肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉价销售这一做法正在损害其形象，因而也影响到其品牌价位，这势必会使产品缺乏新意，最终导致消费者可选范围大大缩小。

　　题目分析

　　1.答案为B，属事实细节题。原文对应信息是“…should not be allowed … to sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.”意思是“只有事先经过牛仔裤生产商的同意才能打折销售。”是否只有生产商才能决定价格，我们不得而知。

　　2.答案为B，属推理判断题。文中提到问题的实质是“whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this.”后又以古奇(Gucci) “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.”为例，说明它的成功并不是诉诸法庭，而是通过自身的努力和尝试。

　　3.答案为C ，属猜词题。第二段开头提出了利维公司(Levi’s)对特易购(Tesco)的指责，后又提出了特易购的反驳意见，前后两者之间的观点应该是相反的。从而可猜出该词的含义。

　　4.答案为D，属推理判断题。原文对应信息是最后一段。

　　5.答案为D，属情感态度题。作者没有任何偏颇的阐述整个事件。

　　参考译文

　　衣裤套装

　　在利维•斯图尔斯公司同泰斯科连锁超市的冲突中，欧洲法庭站在利维一边

　　法庭的裁决使消费者感到义愤填膺，也使很多人认为这对自由贸易者来说显然是一桩违规裁决。11月20日，欧洲法庭对泰斯科(Tesco)这家英国连锁超市做出了如下判决：泰斯科不能从欧盟之外的国家进口利维•斯图尔斯公司生产的牛仔裤；未经牛仔制造商的许可，不得减价销售。具有讽刺意味的是，这项裁决是根据一道欧盟商标指令做出的。该指令的目的在于保护本地、而非美国制造商免受价格倾销造成的损害。其内涵是，任何一家拥有自己品牌的公司都可给自己的产品定位，并以适当的方式分割市场，比如利维牛仔裤，它必须像古姿(Gucci)牌手提包一样高价销售。

　　利维•斯图尔斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利维牛仔服与肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉价销售这一做法正在损害其形象，因而也影响到其品牌价位，这势必会使产品缺乏新意，最终导致消费者可选范围大大缩小。消费者团体和泰斯科却认为，利维公司一案(的判决)貌似有理，实则不然。泰斯科争辩说，它只是从美国和欧洲销售利维牛仔服装的差价中套利。这是一种在金融市场天天进行上百万次、并使消费者真正受益的商业行为。泰斯科一直以低于利维•斯图尔斯公司授权专卖店一半的价格每周销售15,000条牛仔裤。泰斯科公司全球非食品类商品采购主管克里斯廷·克罗斯认为，这一裁决会冒“设置欧洲堡垒”的巨大风险。

　　这场激烈的争论还将继续进行下去，所涉及的范围将远远超出休闲服装业(季诺·大卫多夫香水制造商也和利维·斯图尔斯联手起诉)。核心问题不在于品牌是否需要通过控制销售方式来维护其形象，而在于法院是否有责任来帮助其达到这一目的。意大利品牌服饰公司古姿公司—由于许可经营管理松懈和其商品在折扣店里过度曝光，其形象正在受到损害—并没有依靠法庭，而是通过中止与第三方供应商的合同、更好的控制商品销售，以及开专卖店等方式挽救了自己的命运。现在已经很难找到打折销售古姿产品的地方了。

　　品牌专家认为，利维•斯图尔斯公司正在逐步丧失其市场占有率，而让位于像迪赛(Diesel)这样市场信息颇为灵通的竞争对手。利维•斯图尔斯公司已无力控制品牌溢价。在市场机制的作用下，像利维这样的一般品牌很有可能逐渐消失，进而被新的品牌所取代。由于其价格受到法庭保护，利维•斯图尔斯公司可能会再维持一段时间，但是没有任何一个法庭会使它起死回生，再度成为知名品牌。

 

上一篇：法律类文章精选：LOCK 'EM UP! 下一篇：法律类文章精选：A BURNING IN ALABAMA