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
商标侵权争议中,和解协议通常包含哪些核心内容?
商标侵权和解是当事人通过协商就停止侵权、赔偿损失、标识更换等事项达成一致的民事法律行为。其核心在于权利人基于诉讼风险或成本考量,让渡部分程序利益,换取侵权方对权利归属的承认以及对未来行为的约束。和解协议一经依法订立,即具有合同约束力,双方应按约履行。实务中,和解内容通常涵盖侵权事实的确认、停止使用期限、现有库存处理、新标识选用规则以及违约责任等。
本案中,拉科斯特与浙江鳄鱼的和解协议首先确认了拉科斯特对鳄鱼商标在中国大陆的独占权利,浙江鳄鱼承诺在三年内停止使用相似标识,并须在确定新品牌前征得拉科斯特同意。拉科斯特则相应撤回对浙江鳄鱼的侵权诉讼。此前与香港鳄鱼恤的协议也类似,香港公司自2006年3月31日起改用明显不同的鳄鱼标识。这种安排使双方在诉讼之外找到平衡,既维护了商标权利,又给了被告转型时间。
从实务指引看,权利人在谈判中应明确商标权利的唯一性和排他性,将停止侵权的期限、方式写入协议,并设置监督条款。侵权方则应评估自身库存和销售周期,争取合理的过渡期,同时确保新标识经过专业检索以避免二次侵权。本案中浙江鳄鱼曾表示三年过渡期足够,显示巨幅让利并非必需。协议中还可加入仲裁或诉讼管辖条款,以备违约之需。企业应认识到,和解不是终点,品牌独立才是长久之计。
知名品牌为何愿意给予侵权方过渡期?法律上如何评价?
过渡期是商标权利人在和解协议中允许侵权方在一定期间内继续使用、处理库存或逐步更换标识的宽限安排。法律上,这是当事人意思自治原则的体现,只要不违反法律强制性规定和公共秩序,过渡期条款即属有效。设定过渡期可以降低侵权方的即时履约困难,提高和解成功率,同时避免因骤然停用造成市场混乱,符合经济利益和交易安全的考量。
本案拉科斯特主席米歇尔·拉科斯特明确表示理解企业创立自主品牌的艰难,因此主动给予浙江鳄鱼三年过渡期,拉科斯特的中国律师黄晖认为这一时间非常充裕。浙江鳄鱼在回应中甚至表示不需要那么长时间。此前与香港鳄鱼恤的协议也规定了到2006年3月31日为止的换标期限。这显示过渡期并非法律强制,而是商业谈判中权利人主动选择的让步,用以换取侵权方对独占权的承认和配合。
实务中,过渡期应当与具体义务挂钩,例如分阶段减少产量、限期清理包装和宣传物料、在过渡期内不扩展销售渠道等。权利人可根据侵权方的规模、库存和渠道情况,合理设定期限,一般不宜过长以免弱化商标显著性,也不宜过短导致协议僵局。对侵权方而言,过渡期是重塑品牌的关键窗口,应当利用它完成新品牌注册和推广。法律上评价这种安排,核心是看是否能有效平衡私权保护与商业效率,避免打击企业转型积极性。
企业使用近似商标可能面临哪些法律后果及如何防范?
企业未经商标注册人许可,在相同或类似商品上使用与其注册商标近似的标识,容易导致混淆的,构成商标侵权。法律后果主要包括停止侵权行为、赔偿权利人损失、消除影响,以及承担合理维权费用;情节严重的可能面临行政处罚,构成犯罪的还可追究刑事责任。法律同时对恶意侵权规定了惩罚性赔偿,因此企业模仿知名商标的法律风险极高。
本案拉科斯特早在1980年即在中国注册鳄鱼商标,面对众多近似鳄鱼标识,其先后对浙江鳄鱼、新加坡鳄鱼国际以及销售商提起诉讼。在浙江鳄鱼案中,法院受理后最终以和解结案,确认拉科斯特独占权利。针对新加坡鳄鱼国际,拉科斯特在收到不利判决后转向起诉其分销商,并在湖南两家商场案件中胜诉。这些事实表明,近似商标争议可以通过多种维权路径解决,权利人会对标识近似、销售环节全面追责。
防范措施上,企业应当建立商标检索与风险评估机制,在新品牌立项前查询在先权利,避免故意模仿。若被起诉,应尽早组织证据,评估自身使用历史、主观意图和实际市场,决定应诉或和解。本案中多位律师认为,和解对成长型企业并非坏事,但长期依靠他人品牌只会沦为替他人做嫁衣。最终出路在于创造自有品牌并完成商标注册布局,在核心类别和关联类别上形成防御体系,这样才能在市场竞争中立足而不受制于人。
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




