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
拉科斯特如何通过和解解决鳄鱼商标争议?
拉科斯特公司通过诉讼与和解相结合的方式解决鳄鱼商标争议。首先,针对浙江鳄鱼公司,拉科斯特于2000年向北京市高级人民法院提起商标侵权诉讼,经过五年审理,双方最终达成和解协议。协议核心内容包括:浙江鳄鱼承认拉科斯特在中国大陆对鳄鱼图形商标享有独家使用权,并承诺在三年过渡期内停止使用与拉科斯特近似的鳄鱼标识;同时,浙江鳄鱼在确定新品牌时需事先获得拉科斯特的同意。作为对价,拉科斯特撤回对浙江鳄鱼的起诉。其次,拉科斯特与香港鳄鱼恤公司于2003年达成和解,香港公司承认拉科斯特在内地的商标独占权,并约定自2006年3月31日起采用完全不同的鳄鱼标识。这种和解模式既维护了商标权人的专有权利,又给予侵权方合理的转型时间,避免了长期诉讼带来的商业不确定性。值得注意的是,和解协议还设置了新品牌审批条款,确保新标识与拉科斯特商标形成明显区别,防止再次构成近似。从实务角度看,商标侵权纠纷中,和解并非软弱的体现,而是在权利明确的基础上实现双赢的争议解决方式。对于被诉侵权方而言,主动承认权利归属并争取过渡期,比继续诉讼更具成本效益;对于权利人而言,通过和解可以快速结束市场混乱状态,同时获得侵权方的品牌变更承诺。
商标侵权和解中的过渡期安排有何法律意义?
过渡期安排是商标侵权和解协议中的关键条款,具有重要的法律与商业意义。在拉科斯特与浙江鳄鱼的和解中,拉科斯特给予浙江鳄鱼三年时间停止使用近似标识,而浙江鳄鱼方面表示不需要那么长时间,说明过渡期的长短取决于侵权方的实际转型需求。从法律角度看,过渡期并非侵权行为的合法化,而是权利人基于商业考量作出的让步。这种安排避免了侵权方因立即停止使用标识而可能产生的库存积压、渠道紊乱等损失,同时为侵权方建立自主品牌提供了合理缓冲时间。实务操作中,过渡期条款通常需要与品牌变更义务、市场清理计划、违约责任等配套使用。例如,和解协议可以约定侵权方在过渡期内必须逐步减少近似标识的使用数量,并定期向权利人报告转型进展。此外,过渡期结束后,权利人有权对市场上残留的旧标识产品主张侵权责任。对于被诉侵权企业而言,应充分利用过渡期完成品牌重塑,包括申请新商标注册、更换产品包装、调整宣传物料、培训销售渠道等。法律提示:过渡期不是免责期,如果侵权方在过渡期内扩大使用范围或超过约定期限仍继续使用,权利人依旧可以提起诉讼并主张赔偿。因此,企业应严格履行和解协议,不可将过渡期理解为可以继续追逐侵权利益的窗口。同时,新品牌确定前征求权利人意见的条款,有助于避免二次侵权风险,是和解协议中值得借鉴的设计。
中国企业从鳄鱼商标案中应吸取哪些品牌建设教训?
鳄鱼商标系列纠纷给中国企业留下了深刻的品牌建设教训。第一,模仿知名品牌虽然能在短期内获得市场份额和利润,但长期来看是在为他人品牌做嫁衣。正如律师杨春宝所言,模仿会带来即时利润,但长远看等于替别的品牌做推广,最终仍须重建自有品牌体系。本案中,浙江鳄鱼曾在北京市场的销量超过拉科斯特,但一旦权利纠纷爆发,其销售网络和品牌资产便面临巨大风险。第二,商标是企业核心资产,必须尽早注册并建立防御体系。拉科斯特1980年在中国注册商标,但直到1990年才重视中国市场,期间大量仿冒者涌入,导致维权成本高昂。中国企业应在产品进入市场前就完成商标注册,并考虑注册联合商标、防御商标以覆盖近似标识。第三,和解与转型是可行的出路。浙江鳄鱼最终承认拉科斯特的独占权,并承诺创建自有品牌,这体现了尊重知识产权的现代商业伦理。对于已被认定侵权的企业,与其拖延诉讼,不如主动协商争取过渡期,利用时间窗口转型。第四,自主品牌建设需要战略投入。品牌不仅是一个标识,更代表质量、信誉和消费者认知。企业应当投入资源进行原创设计,建立独特的品牌文化,而不是简单修改他人商标的某个元素。实际案例中,香港鳄鱼恤在和解后更换了完全不同的标识,虽然短期可能损失部分识别度,但长期看有利于合规经营和品牌独立发展。第五,行业协会和政府部门也应引导企业树立知识产权意识,在招商引资和产业政策中强化自主品牌扶持,帮助中国企业从“中国制造”走向“中国品牌”。总之,尊重他人商标权是法律底线,创建自主品牌才是企业永续经营的正道。
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

