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))
相关法律服务
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
鳄鱼商标系列纠纷中,当事人达成和解有哪些法律意义?
在鳄鱼商标系列纠纷中,拉科斯特与浙江鳄鱼公司及香港鳄鱼恤公司分别达成和解,浙江鳄鱼承认拉科斯特的鳄鱼商标独占权并承诺限期停止使用近似标识,香港公司也随之更换标识。从法律层面看,和解协议是当事人依法处分自身民事权利的表现,具有合同效力,能够有效定分止争,避免长期诉讼带来的不确定性和高昂成本。商标侵权纠纷中的和解通常涵盖停止侵权、赔偿损失、过渡期使用安排、新标识审查等条款。实务操作中,权利人应当通过协议明确对方停止侵权的具体期限、方式以及违约后果,确保自身权利能够落到实处;被诉方则应在协商中争取合理的过渡期,以便清理库存、调整生产线和完成品牌切换。常见争议焦点包括和解协议是否对未参加诉讼的其他侵权人产生约束力,以及协议中关于商标共存或权利界限的约定是否与商标核准注册的范围相一致。此外,和解不能损害消费者权益和社会公共秩序。对于正在成长中的企业而言,和解可以避免因侵权导致的商誉和市场份额损失,也为自主品牌的建设赢得时间和空间,具有积极的法律与社会意义。
为何法院认可给予侵权企业合理过渡期的安排?这种安排对双方有何利弊?
法院在调解或促成和解时,有时会考虑侵权企业的实际经营状况,允许其在限定时间内逐步停止使用侵权标识。本案中,拉科斯特给予浙江鳄鱼三年过渡期,而对方甚至表示不需要那么长时间,说明过渡期是双方协商的结果。这种安排并非法律明文规定的强制措施,而是基于当事人意思自治和实质公平的考量。从法律效果看,过渡期既保障了权利人最终获得独占权,又避免侵权方因立即停止使用而陷入经营困境,有利于社会资源的平稳利用和品牌更替。对权利人而言,需要承受一段时间内市场上仍存在近似标识的竞争,可能影响品牌区分度,但通过严格约定过渡期内的使用范围、方式和监督机制,可以将风险控制在可接受范围内。对被诉方面言,应当制定切实可行的品牌切换计划,利用过渡期清理库存、注册新标识、开展品牌宣传,而不是继续依赖原侵权标识。常见争议包括过渡期内的销售行为是否仍构成侵权,以及过渡期届满后尚未售出的货物如何处理。如果双方没有明确约定,很容易引发后续纠纷。因此,过渡期安排必须配合详细的条款设计,比如限定销售渠道、地域范围、数量以及届满后的处置方式,才能实现双赢。对于发展中的企业,这种安排提供了一个缓冲机会,使其在承担责任的同时能够平稳转型,避免因突然停止经营造成更大损失。
这起系列纠纷对中国企业自主品牌建设有哪些警示?
这起系列纠纷深刻揭示了模仿知名品牌的短视和风险。文章指出,使用近似鳄鱼标识的企业虽然短期内获得了利润,但长期看是在为拉科斯特等品牌做推广,最终仍然需要重建自己的品牌体系。从法律角度讲,商标法保护注册商标的专用权,未经许可在同一种或类似商品上使用与注册商标近似的标识,容易导致市场混淆,构成侵权。本案中,多家企业使用鳄鱼图形或类似标识,经过多年诉讼后均被要求停止使用或更换标识,充分说明侵权行为的法律后果。中国企业应当树立知识产权意识,在创立品牌之初就进行充分的商标检索,选择具有显著性的标识并及时申请注册。如果已经使用了与知名品牌近似的标识,应当主动寻求合法的共存协议或者启动品牌升级程序,避免诉讼带来的损失。实务中,企业要建立商标预警机制,密切关注同行业商标注册和使用的动态,发现潜在冲突及时调整策略。同时,可以借鉴本案的和解方式,在权利冲突中通过谈判实现平稳过渡。对于开展出口业务的企业,还需注意商标保护的地域性,提前在目标市场进行布局。总之,自主品牌是企业长期发展的核心竞争力,依靠模仿无法持续,只有坚持创新和合规经营,才能在市场竞争中建立真正的商誉。
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


