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
鳄鱼商标纠纷中和解协议有何法律效力?
和解协议是当事人之间就争议事项自愿达成的民事合同,具有法律约束力。在商标侵权纠纷中,双方通过和解确认权利归属、约定停止使用侵权标识及过渡期安排,可以有效终结诉讼程序,避免长期司法对抗。和解协议一经签署,双方均应诚信履行,若一方违约,另一方有权依据协议内容主张违约责任或申请强制执行。其效力类似于民事合同,但需注意不得损害国家利益、社会公共利益或第三人合法权益。
本案中,拉科斯特与浙江鳄鱼、香港鳄鱼恤分别达成和解,浙江鳄鱼承诺三年内停止使用近似标识,香港鳄鱼恤则自2006年3月31日起启用不同鳄鱼图形。拉科斯特随后撤回对浙江鳄鱼的诉讼。这种安排既保护了权利人的独占权,又给予对方合理过渡期,体现了协商解决争议的灵活性。
实务中,和解协议应明确权利归属、停止使用期限、新标识的审批程序、违约责任等条款。企业应评估自身品牌转型能力,避免过渡期过短导致库存积压或市场混淆。同时,和解协议可能需要向法院或行政机关备案,以确保执行效力。对于权利人而言,和解并非放弃维权,而是通过契约方式固化权利边界,减少后续纠纷。
模仿知名品牌商标会面临哪些法律风险?
模仿知名品牌商标可能构成商标侵权或不正当竞争,法律风险包括民事赔偿、行政查处及刑事追责。根据商标法原则,未经许可在同一种或类似商品上使用与注册商标相同或近似的标识,容易导致混淆的,属于侵权行为。权利人可要求停止侵权、销毁侵权标识、赔偿损失,并可能主张惩罚性赔偿。行政机关可没收、销毁侵权商品,处以罚款。情节严重构成犯罪的,还可能面临刑事责任。
文章中的案例显示,拉科斯特自1980年在中国注册商标后,二十年间出现大量仿冒鳄鱼标识的企业,包括浙江鳄鱼、香港鳄鱼恤、新加坡鳄鱼国际等。拉科斯特通过诉讼主张权利,但最终以和解方式解决,避免长期诉讼成本。浙江鳄鱼作为本土企业,因模仿拉科斯特标识而面临诉讼,最终不得不更换品牌,体现了模仿行为的法律后果。
实务中,企业应事先进行商标检索,避免使用与他人注册商标近似的标识。若已构成侵权,应积极协商和解,争取过渡期以完成品牌切换。同时,需警惕反向混淆风险,即知名品牌可能对在先使用但未注册的标识主张权利。企业应建立商标预警机制,定期监测市场动态,及时调整品牌策略。
中国本土企业如何通过和解实现品牌转型?
和解协议为本土企业提供了缓冲期,使其能够在不中断经营的情况下完成品牌转型。法律上,和解是当事人自愿处分民事权利的行为,不违反强制性规定即可生效。本土企业通过承认对方商标权、承诺停止使用侵权标识,换取对方撤诉或放弃索赔,并约定合理过渡期,从而有时间设计新品牌、调整生产销售渠道。
文章中的浙江鳄鱼在和解后,其董事长胡启扬表示理解尊重拉科斯特商标权,并决心创建自有品牌。拉科斯特给予三年过渡期,浙江鳄鱼甚至表示不需要那么长时间。香港鳄鱼恤则从2006年起启用不同鳄鱼图形。这些和解方案均考虑了企业实际转型需求,体现了互利共赢。
实务中,企业应利用过渡期开展新品牌注册、包装更换、市场宣传等工作,并注意保留过渡期内的销售记录以证明合法使用。同时,应评估新品牌的显著性,避免再次与他人权利冲突。和解协议中应明确新品牌需经权利人认可,防止后续纠纷。企业还应借此机会完善内部知识产权管理制度,建立自主品牌保护体系,避免长期依赖模仿。
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



