JAWS closed (China Daily)

文章摘要 法国Lacoste公司历经五年商标维权,先后与浙江鳄鱼、香港鳄鱼达成和解,确认其鳄鱼图形商标在中国大陆的独占使用权,并给予对方三年过渡期以更换商标。目前仅与新加坡鳄鱼国际的争议仍在诉讼中。本案体现了跨国企业在华知识产权保护策略从对抗转向和解的趋势,也警示中国企业应重视自主品牌建设,而非长期模仿知名商标。文章介绍了Lacoste商标的起源及各方市场布局,为中国企业处理类似商标冲突提供了和解协商、过渡期安排等实务参考。

French clothing manufacturer manages to settle several copyright disputes through mutually beneficial conciliatory agreements

 

 

SHANGHAI: Documentaries typically depict the savagery of the animal world through footage of opposing species clashing with one another for supremacy, but the most recent battle on Asian soil has been decidedly reptilian.

Although some consumers debate whether those famous shirts sport an alligator or crocodile logo, there is no question after a five-year court struggle that the cold-blooded creature is the exclusive trademark of French La Chemise Lacoste in China.

“This is the most important thing we have fought for,” says Paul Ranjard, Lacoste’s acting lawyer and chairman of the European Chamber’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Working Group.

Lacoste has reached an agreement with Zhejiang Crocodile Garment Co Ltd, which is based in East China’s Zhejiang Province, that recognizes the European manufacturer’s exclusive rights to the crocodilian trademark in China. The Chinese company will stop using its similar logo within three years.

Lacoste followed the deal by announcing it would withdraw its against Zhejiang Crocodile.

Hu Qiyang, chairman of Zhejiang Crocodile, said at a November 17 press conference in Beijing that he understood the importance of respecting Lacoste’s exclusive rights to the trademark.

He added that he was determined to create his own brand, and hoped domestic enterprises would do the same by actively protecting their own identities, according to reports in the Beijing-based Legal Daily.

Lacoste also expressed understanding. Chairman Michel Lacoste says he appreciates the difficulties enterprises face in developing their own brands, which is why the company agreed to grant Zhejiang Crocodile a three-year transition period.

That time frame is more than adequate, says Lacoste’s Chinese lawyer Huang Hui.

“They (zhejiang Crocodile) said they didn’t need that much time,” Huang says.

Ranjard adds that the deal also requires Zhejiang Crocodile to seek approval fromLacoste before deciding on a new brand.

It was Lacoste’s second reconciliation following its agreement with Hong Kong based Crocodile Garments Ltd, another big competitor in the mainland market.

The two agreed on November 23, 2003 that Crocodile Garments recognizes Lacoste’s exclusive rights to the reptile trademark on the mainland. The Hong Kong manufacturer will begin using a very different crocodilian logo on its products from March 31, 2006.

A third dispute with Singapore-based Crocodile International Private Ltd is now the only unresolved issue. The companies have been in court for over five years.

In March 2004 a Shanghai court ordered Lacoste to stop infringing on the Singaporean company’s logo, which the French manufacturer rejected. It shifted its focus to distributors, and filed a lawsuit against two department stores that were selling the Singaporean company’s products in Central China’s Hunan Province. It won both cases.

Lacoste registered its trademark in China in 1980, but the company did not prioritize the market until 1990. Its solid reputation and marketable reptilian logo soon became popular with Chinese clothing companies. Over the past two decades, copycat crocodiles have sprung up all over the mainland.

Singapore Crocodile International opened its first wholly owned enterprise in Shanghai in 1994, and later set up two factories in Shenyang, in Northeast China’s Liaoning Province, and in Suzhou, in East China’s Jiangsu Province.

It now has more than 1,000 specialty shops and its products have brought in approximately 2 billion yuan (U$246 million) in sales.

Hong Kong-based Crocodile Garments, which was founded by Chen Jun, brother of Crocodile International’s Chen Xianjin, also fared well. It built a large production base in South China’s Guangdong Province in 1987, and started selling crocodile shirts on the mainland in 1990.

Crocodile Garment’s sales network now covers 90 cities, with over 900 specialty shops and annual sales of more than 1 billion yuan (US$123 million).

Lacoste built its production base in 1995 and launched its first specialty shop in Shanghai. It now runs only 200 specialty shops and department store counters, but China is only the company’s 10th largest market in the world.

Zhejiang Crocodile is the largest of the domestic crocodiles, with more than 260 specialty shops and store counters by 2003. Its sales in Beijing surpassed the other three crocodiles.

Zhou Baochang, general manager of Zhejiang Crocodile, refuses to comment on the Lacoste deal, but says it was based on mutual understanding. He is also unwilling to reveal sales figures, for fear of hurting the company’s rivals.

Lacoste filed a suit against Zhejiang Crocodile for trademark infringement in the Beijing Higher People’s Court on May 11. 2000. The case opened two years later.

“We wanted to let our competitors know through the lawsuit that our trademark is unique,” says Ranjard.

Zheng Zhangjun, a partner with Beijing Fengshi Law Firm, says the result was positive.

“It is favourable to Zhejiang Crocodile,” he says.

“Reconciliation is a good way forward for China’s growing enterprises.”

He says that trademarks are vital to business, and Chinese enterprises need transitional periods to establish their own brands.

Yang Chunbao, a senior lawyer from Haworth & Lexon Shanghai, says Chinese firms should not rely too much on famous foreign brands.

“Imitating a famous brand will bring immediate profits, but over the long run, you are simply promoting other brands,” he says.

“Ultimately, you still have to re-establish your own brand systems.”

This point may have been lost on many of the smaller crocodile companies.

Lacoste’s lawyer Huang syas the company is still fighting against many enterprises other than the Singaporean manufacturer.

 

Origin of the species

Lacoste’s trademark came from company founder Rene Lacoste. The famous US tennis player was nicknamed “Crocodile” because of a bet he made with his captain, who promised him a crocodile skin suitcase if he won a match that was important for the team.

The nickname stuck, caught on with the American public, and highlighted Lacoste’s tenacity on the tennis courts.

Lacoste’s friend Robert George drew a crocodile that was later embroidered on a blazer the star wore on the court. The animal was on the left side, with its mouth facing to the right.

Lacoste established La Chemise Lacoste in 1933, and began mass-producing the shirts. The logo was first registered in France, but later spread to 192 countries. The design was later put on a number of other commodities, such as perfume and shoes.

(本文转载自China Daily(《中国日报》)之China Business Weekly(商业周刊)2005年11月25日IPR Special(知识产权专刊))

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

Lacoste与浙江鳄鱼的和解协议包含哪些核心内容?

Lacoste与浙江鳄鱼达成的和解协议主要包含三项核心内容:第一,浙江鳄鱼明确承认Lacoste对鳄鱼图形商标在中国大陆的独占使用权,这是整个和解的基础;第二,浙江鳄鱼承诺在三年过渡期内停止使用与Lacoste近似的鳄鱼标识,并需在确定新品牌前征得Lacoste的同意,以确保新标识不会再次产生混淆;第三,Lacoste同意撤回对浙江鳄鱼提起的商标侵权诉讼,并给予对方合理的过渡时间以消化库存、更换吊牌和店面装潢。这一安排体现了商标权人的权利主张与侵权方实际经营困难的平衡。从实务角度看,和解协议中的过渡期并非法定义务,而是权利人基于商业考量作出的让步。对侵权企业而言,即便获得过渡期,也应尽快启动自主品牌的设计、注册和市场推广,避免临时抱佛脚。值得关注的是,浙江鳄鱼方面曾表示三年时间并不需要那么长,这说明其已有转型准备。此类和解方案的优势在于避免漫长诉讼带来的不确定性和成本,同时为侵权方保留了转型空间,但劣势在于如果过渡期管理不善,仍可能引发新的商标冲突。对于其他面临类似纠纷的企业,应当借鉴这一模式,在专业律师协助下严格界定过渡期的使用范围、地域和商品类别,并建立新品牌审核机制。

中国企业面对国际品牌商标维权应如何应对?

中国企业面对国际品牌商标维权时,首先应当评估自身使用标识的历史、注册情况、市场影响力以及主观意图。如果确实构成近似侵权,积极和解并争取过渡期是常见且务实的策略,正如浙江鳄鱼和香港鳄鱼的选择。和解并非完全败退,而是通过承认对方权利换取时间和空间进行品牌升级。在应对过程中,企业应重点做好以下几方面工作:一是立即停止扩大侵权使用范围,避免恶意侵权认定;二是盘点库存、销售渠道和广告投入,为谈判提供数据支持;三是设计并申请自主商标,确保新标识在全球主要市场可注册;四是与权利人协商合理的库存出清期和标识更换期限,最好以书面协议明确具体时间节点和责任条款;五是注意保留和解过程中的沟通记录,防止后续争议。从法律角度看,商标侵权纠纷中,权利人通常可以要求停止侵害、赔偿损失、销毁侵权标识等。若企业能证明其使用具有合法来源或系善意使用,可能减轻责任,但完全免责难度较大。长远来看,依靠模仿知名商标只能获得短期利益,正如律师所言,这实际上是在为他人品牌做推广。中国企业应当从本案吸取教训,将资源投入到自主研发和品牌塑造中,建立独立的品牌识别系统。此外,企业还应当关注商标的国际注册,避免在海外市场遭遇同样的维权困境。对于已经进入诉讼程序的企业,可考虑在法院主持下达成调解,调解书具有法律强制力,且能降低公开判决带来的商誉影响。

商标共存协议在鳄鱼商标系列纠纷中起何作用?

在鳄鱼商标系列纠纷中,商标共存协议发挥了关键作用。Lacoste通过与浙江鳄鱼、香港鳄鱼分别签署协议,明确了各方的商标使用范围和时间安排,从而实现了市场共存。这类协议的法律效果在于,商标权人通过契约方式处分自己的民事权利,允许他人在特定条件下使用相同或近似标识,或约定一方限期退出使用,从而避免持续诉讼。具体到本案,Lacoste与香港鳄鱼的协议要求后者自2006年3月31日起改用完全不同的鳄鱼标识,这与浙江鳄鱼的三年过渡期类似,都属于附期限的共存安排。共存协议的意义不仅在于解决个案纠纷,还在于为市场划定清晰的品牌边界,减少消费者混淆。然而,共存协议并非万能,其效力受到一定限制:首先,协议不能对抗善意第三人,若有其他未参与协议的企业使用近似标识,权利人仍需另行维权;其次,协议内容若涉及垄断或损害消费者利益,可能被认定为无效;第三,在中国法律实践中,商标共存协议需要向商标行政管理部门或法院提交,作为判断是否构成混淆的参考因素,但并非绝对依据。对于企业而言,签署共存协议时应当明确商品类别、地域范围、使用方式、期限以及违约责任。本案中,Lacoste与新加坡鳄鱼国际的纠纷尚未解决,说明当双方无法达成共存的商业安排时,司法裁判仍是最终途径。值得注意的是,Lacoste在与新加坡公司的诉讼中曾被上海法院判令停止侵权,但Lacoste随后通过起诉销售商的方式间接维权,这种策略也反映了商标纠纷中的复杂博弈。总体而言,共存协议是平衡各方利益的有效工具,但企业不能过度依赖,根本出路仍在打造自有品牌。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:https://shanghaiiplawyer.com/。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复