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.

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

注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對象2001年真題text 5（其中因2001年真題text 5只有4個題目，所以本文第5題模仿參照對象為1999年 Text 1的第4題。)

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 doomed 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 prospect seems to be _______.

[A] biased

[B] indifferent

[C] puzzling

[D] objective

答案：B B C D D

篇章剖析

本文的結(jié)構(gòu)形式為提出問題----分析問題。在第一段首先提出問題,指出歐洲法庭對特易購超市做出的裁決。第二段指出當(dāng)事方對同一事件的不同看法和解釋。第三段指出爭論的核心問題在于是否應(yīng)該借助法庭達(dá)到一些商業(yè)目的，并以古奇（Gucci）為例說明答案為否定。第四段對利維（Levi’s）的前景做出了評價和分析。

詞匯注釋

seethingadj.沸騰的, 火熱的

foul adj.下流的，粗俗的：

segment v.分割

innovation n.改革, 創(chuàng)新

specious adj. 似是而非的; 似乎正確的，但實(shí)際卻是謬誤的

arbitrage v. 套匯, 套利交易

with a vengeance 猛烈地;極度地

licensing n.注冊登記

discount n.折扣

resort vi.求助, 訴諸

premium n.額外費(fèi)用, 獎金, 獎賞, 保險(xiǎn)費(fèi), (貨幣兌現(xiàn)的)貼水

難句突破

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.

主體句式：Levi Strauss persuaded that …

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：that之后是一個賓語從句；by之后的句子做伴隨狀語來修飾賓語從句；賓語從句中which又引導(dǎo)了一個非限制性定語從句。

句子譯文：利維•斯特勞斯公司使法庭相信特易購把利維牛仔服與皂粉，香蕉等放在一起廉價銷售這一做法使其形象受損，品牌價位也因此受到了影響，這勢必會使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終減少消費(fèi)者的選擇。

題目分析

1．答案為B，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對應(yīng)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“只有事先經(jīng)過牛仔褲生產(chǎn)商的同意才能打折銷售。”是否只有生產(chǎn)商才能決定價格，我們不得而知。

2．答案為B，屬推理判斷題。文中提到問題的實(shí)質(zhì)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.”為例，說明它的成功并不是訴諸法庭，而是通過自身的努力和嘗試。

3．答案為C ，屬猜詞題。第二段開頭提出了利維公司（Levi’s）對特易購（Tesco）的指責(zé)，后又提出了特易購的反駁意見，前后兩者之間的觀點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是相反的。從而可猜出該詞的含義。

4．答案為D，屬推理判斷題。原文對應(yīng)信息是最后一段。

5．答案為D，屬情感態(tài)度題。作者沒有任何偏頗的闡述整個事件。

參考譯文

法庭的裁決使消費(fèi)者感到義憤填膺，很多自由貿(mào)易者也感到憤憤不平。11月20日，歐洲法庭對特易購(Tesco)這家英國連鎖超市做出了判決，特易購不能通過歐盟之外的渠道進(jìn)口利維•斯特勞斯公司生產(chǎn)的牛仔褲，并且沒有事先經(jīng)過牛仔制造商的同意，不能打折銷售。具有諷刺意味的是，這項(xiàng)判決是根據(jù)歐盟商標(biāo)法做出的，目的在于保護(hù)本地而非美國制造商免受價格傾銷的紛擾。其觀點(diǎn)是應(yīng)該允許任何一家擁有自己品牌的公司給自己的產(chǎn)品定位，分屬適合的市場，比如利維牛仔褲，它就應(yīng)該象古奇(Gucci)牌手提包一樣售價昂貴。

利維•斯特勞斯公司使法庭相信特易購把利維牛仔褲與皂粉，香蕉等放在一起廉價銷售這一做法使其形象受損，品牌價位也因此受到了影響，這勢必會使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終減少消費(fèi)者的選擇。消費(fèi)者和特易購卻認(rèn)為利維公司貌似有理實(shí)則不然。特易購認(rèn)為它只是從美國和歐洲銷售利維牛仔褲存在的價格差價中套利。這是一種在金融市場上天天都會進(jìn)行上百萬次，并使消費(fèi)者真正受益的商業(yè)行為。特易購一周之內(nèi)以低于利維•斯特勞斯公司授權(quán)專賣店一半的價格銷售15，000條牛仔褲。負(fù)責(zé)特易購全球非食品類主管克里斯廷•克羅斯認(rèn)為這一裁決會加大產(chǎn)生“歐洲堡壘”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

這場爭論還將繼續(xù)下去，并且不單只局限于休閑服裝（季諾•大衛(wèi)多夫香水制造商也和利維•斯特勞斯聯(lián)手訴訟）。這一問題實(shí)際上不在于品牌商品是否應(yīng)該控制銷售方式來維護(hù)其形象，而在于是否應(yīng)該借助法庭來幫助它們達(dá)到這一目的。許可經(jīng)營管理松散并且在折扣店里頻頻出現(xiàn)毀壞了古奇這一意大利品牌服飾的形象，但它并沒有訴諸法庭，而是通過中止與第三方供應(yīng)商的合同，更好的控制商品銷售，以及開專賣店等方式挽救了自己的命運(yùn)?，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)很難找到打折銷售古奇產(chǎn)品的地方了。

品牌專家認(rèn)為利維•斯特勞斯公司正在逐步喪失市場占有率，而讓步給Diesel這樣的競爭對手,它的實(shí)力已不足以使它對溢價具有掌控能力。在市場機(jī)制的作用下，象利維這樣的一般品牌很有可能會逐漸消失，被新的品牌所代替。由于法庭對其價格有保護(hù)作用，利維•斯特勞斯公司可能會多維持一段時間，但是法庭卻無法幫它再成為知名品牌了。