Lacoste, Longtime Rival Go Croc to Croc in China
The trademark lawyers behind the look-alike crocodile logos of France's La Chemise Lacoste SA and Singapore's Crocodile International Pte Ltd. have been snapping at each other in Asian courts for decades, usually agreeing after each fracas to share the continent's smaller ponds peacefully.
Now, however, the old adversaries are facing off in a fierce war for habitat in China, a $54 billion-a-year retail clothing market. The extreme -- and sometimes comical -- legal tactics the companies are using to defeat each others' trademark claims show how critical the Chinese domestic market has become to mature retail brands looking for growth.
The two logos aren't exactly identical: Crocodile International's croc faces to the left, while Lacoste's faces right. As for products, Crocodile International sells its apparel in China for about half the price of Lacoste's high-end sportswear.
Both companies are private and don't publicly report sales, though Crocodile International says it rings up more than a third of its $333 million in annual sales in China. Lacoste says every shirt or belt its competitor sells saps the value of its high-end brand.
"It's not just a question of sales; this really hurts our image," says Philippe Lacoste, a company director and grandson of French tennis champion René Lacoste, who founded the company in 1933. "They're much lower-end. Consumers who don't know our brand get confused."
Lacoste and Crocodile International have sparred over their logos for decades.
Lacoste registered its crocodile logo in China in 1980 and now has 134 outlets, primarily in department stores. Crocodile International filed a Chinese trademark application for its crocodile image under a brand called Cartelo in 1993. It applied to trademark a similar logo under the Crocodile brand in 1994. Lacoste is now fighting those applications ferociously at Beijing's trademark office and in four separate suits. Not content to wait years for those decisions, the two have engaged in a side skirmish in China's trademark office to shore up their respective claims.
Crocodile International has registered its logo on a host of product lines it doesn't actually produce, including wine, tobacco, housewares, even industrial equipment. The goal is to stake a broader claim on the crocodile-shaped design. Lacoste, meanwhile, applied to register a left-facing crocodile logo similar to Crocodile International's in 1995 in a bid to corner all forms of the crocodile image. "We never used it or planned to use it. It was purely a defensive gesture," says Paul Ranjard, a partner at Adamas Avocats Associés.
Crocodile accused Lacoste of copyright infringement. Last week, a judge in Shanghai agreed. Lacoste now owes Crocodile $1 and a public apology. Lacoste plans to appeal.
Crocodile International was founded in 1947 by Tan Hian Tsin, a Singaporean who emigrated from China in the 1940s with his five brothers. Dr. Tan set up Crocodile International in Singapore and registered the logo in 1951. A brother set up a similar company in Hong Kong sharing the same logo.
Throughout the 1950s and '60s -- long before France's Lacoste ever dreamed of selling clothes in the Far East -- Dr. Tan registered Crocodile's left-facing logo in trademark offices across Asia. When Lacoste began selling clothes in Japan early in the 1970s, Crocodile International slapped it with a trademark suit. Lacoste successfully argued that the two logos were different. That decision meant both could sell their wares there.
In 1983, the two signed an agreement to end legal tussles in Southeast Asia that had cropped up after the Japan ruling. Crocodile International agreed not to fight Lacoste in Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Singapore. Lacoste agreed to pay Crocodile International $1.5 million. The two also agreed to "cooperate in other parts of the world wherever possible," according to a copy of the agreement held by Crocodile International.
Crocodile International, for example, agreed in 1985 to not fight Lacoste in Pakistan and India, where the Singapore company had registered in 1952, in exchange for a similar agreement covering South Korea, where Lacoste was the early entrant.
But the companies fought bitterly elsewhere. When Crocodile International followed Lacoste to Cambodia and Myanmar in the late 1990s, the two wound up in court. This time, it was Crocodile International arguing that the logos were different enough to coexist side by side. In 2001, the Myanmar Supreme Court agreed. A court in Cambodia ruled similarly last year.
"Whenever we enter a market [Lacoste is] in, they claim we're similar," complains Ang Boon Tian, managing director of Crocodile International. "Their stance has changed from Japan, when they argued we were different."
As matters now stand, by dint of various court rulings, truces and the odd side deal, Crocodile International and Lacoste both sell their clothes in most Asian markets. But nobody's ceding ground in China. "I hope Lacoste would consider that we should coexist in China, like the other countries," says Mr. Ang. "But as long as Lacoste wants to try to kick us out, we will make our stand."
For Lacoste, peaceful coexistence is no longer a consideration. "We made an agreement in countries where we didn't have any choice," says Mr. Lacoste. "That's not the case in China."
中国上演鳄鱼大战
全球两大知名服装公司－法国的La Chemise Lacoste SA和新加坡的Crocodile International Pte. Ltd.就鳄鱼标志掀起的法律战已经打了数十年，战火燃遍了从日本到柬埔寨的亚洲各国法庭。
最终，他们通常都会让各自的鳄鱼（一条朝右，一条朝左）在亚洲市场这个小小池塘中相安无事。然而，这一对宿敌为了争夺在中国的领地将面对一场激烈的战斗。在中国这个每年54亿美元的服装零售市场上，谁也不愿意后退。
为此双方各展其能，甚至不惜走向极端，有些手段都未免让人觉得滑稽可笑。不过这也表明，对已经成熟的服装品牌而言，赢得中国市场对扩大业务、提振利润来说是多么重要。
Crocodile International商品在中国的售价只有Lacoste的一半。两家公司都生产休闲服装，例如polo衬衫和运动装，都是未上市公司，也都不公开销售额情况。但Crocodile International表示，该公司3.3亿美元年销售额中三分之一以上都来自中国市场；Lacoste则宣称，前者每售出一件衬衫，一条腰带，都是对"鳄鱼"这个高端品牌的一次伤害。
菲利?拉科斯特(Philiand Lacoste)说："这与销售额无关，他们的做法实际上损害了我们的品牌。"菲利是La Chemise Lacoste创始人、法国网球公开赛冠军雷恩?拉科斯特(Rene Lacoste)的孙子，雷恩于1933年创立了这家公司。菲利说："他们的品牌定位更低端，那些不了解我们品牌的消费者常常会感到困惑。"
Lacoste早在1980年就在中国注册了面向右侧的鳄鱼标志，目前在全国各地拥有134家店面，多数都在百货商店里。Crocodile International是在1993年才以Cartelo为品牌，为一条面向左侧的鳄鱼形象在中国提出商标注册申请；1994年提出了以Crocodile为品牌名称的商标注册申请。
Lacoste为此向中国商标局提出了强烈抗议，并提起四项不同的诉讼。因为不愿等待历时数年的最终裁决，双方施展非同寻常的迂回战术，向中国商标局申述各自的观点。 Crocodile International注册鳄鱼标志的商品种类繁多，甚至包括葡萄酒、烟草、家用产品和工业设备等该公司根本不生产的商品，旨在获得更多使用类似鳄鱼标志的产品的所有权。
Lacoste也在1995年申请注册面向左侧的鳄鱼标志，与Crocodile International的类似，意欲排斥所有其他鳄鱼形象。
代表Lacoste在中国进行诉讼的律师事务所Adamas Avocats Associes的合伙人朗雅尔(Paul Ranjard)说，Lacoste从未使用过，也不打算使用这个标志。这只是一种防卫手段。
于是Crocodile International起诉Lacoste侵犯版权。上海一家法院的法官支持Crocodile International的主张，并于上周作出判决。现在Lacoste需要向Crocodile International支付1美元，并公开道歉。Lacoste计划上诉。
这种针锋相对的争斗对这两家公司来说已经司空见惯了。Crocodile International于1947年由新加坡人陈贤进(Tan Hian Tsim)创立，他和他的5个兄弟在四十年代从中国移民到新加坡。陈贤进在新加坡创办了Crocodile International，并于1951年注册了鳄鱼标志。此后，他的一位兄弟在香港创办了一家类似的公司，双方共享这个鳄鱼标志。
五、六十年代期间，陈贤进在亚洲各地商标局依次注册了面向左侧的鳄鱼标志。这时法国的Lacoste还从未想到要来亚洲售卖衬衫，当然它的标志在欧洲已经是家喻户晓了。
当Lacoste于七十年代初在日本开始销售服装时，Crocodile International就毫不客气地提出了商标侵权的起诉。Lacoste因辩护称这是两个不同的标志而胜诉，意味著两家公司都可以用各自的标志在日本出售服装。
Lacoste同意向Crocodile International支付150万美元，换取后者允诺，在台湾、马来西亚、文莱、印尼和新加坡不发起诉讼。
据Crocodile International保存的一份协议复印件，双方还同意，在全球其他地区，只要有可能就携手合作，并共同打击第三方的侵权行为。
例如，1985年Crocodile International就同意，虽然早在1952年就在巴基斯坦和印度注册了商标，但不会在这两个市场针对Lacoste提起诉讼。作为交换，Lacoste也在先期进入的韩国市场作出了类似允诺。
但他们在其他市场的竞争却异常激烈。当Crocodile International仅随Lacoste后尘，在九十年代末进入柬埔寨和缅甸市场时，双方终于对簿公堂。这一次，轮到Crocodile International来力争两个标志的不同足以共存。2001年，缅甸高等法院(Myanmar Supreme Court)判决Crocodile International胜诉，柬埔寨的一家法院去年也作出了类似判决。
Lacoste最大的一场胜仗是在香港打赢的。1980年Lacoste与当时由陈贤进兄弟之一掌管的鳄鱼恤有限公司（Crocodile Garments Ltd., 简称：鳄鱼恤）达成协议，鳄鱼恤在出售自己品牌的衬衫之外，还会在香港分销Lacoste的商品，但不包括中国大陆市场。
鳄鱼恤于1987年易手，当时丽新发展有限公司(Lai Sun Development Co., 简称：丽新发展)旗下子公司收购了鳄鱼恤55%股权。1993年，鳄鱼恤在中国大陆申请商标注册，Lacoste称此举违反了双方于1980年达成的协议。
Lacoste将鳄鱼恤告上了香港和北京的法庭。Lacoste赢得了香港的官司；去年双方同意就第二场官司达成庭外和解。根据和解协议，鳄鱼恤将从2006年3月31日开始停止使用其标志，转而采用Lacoste认可的标志。但这两笔官司对Crocodile International毫无影响，它继续采取措施保护自己的标志。
底线就是：凭著接连不断的官司，休战协定，加上偶尔能够达成的协议，Crocodile International和Lacoste在亚洲大部分市场同时销售各自的商品。
但没人愿意在中国市场退让。Crocodile International董事总经理洪文展(Ang Boon Tian)说，希望Lacoste能够认识到双方可以在中国市场并存，与其他市场一样。但是，只要Lacoste还在试图把Crocodile International踢出场外，Crocodile International就会据理力争。
但Lacoste再也不愿意考虑合并共处的局面了。菲利?拉科斯特说，在别无选择的时候公司才不得不以协议方式解决问题。但中国的情况完全不同，未来7-10年内，中国市场的销售额将占该公司销售总额的20%。
他认为，Crocodile International和其他100多个仿冒Lacoste的品牌一样，对公司不利。Lacoste也针对大量仿冒品牌提出了起诉。
他说，仿冒者如此众多，对公司来说非常危险。如果不及时采取对策，公司难以在中国市场开展业务。
