1 TROUSER SUIT
The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco
Dateline: New York
IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething1 with anger and many a free trader crying foul2. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided3 that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America's Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker4. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark5 directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi's jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's case is specious6. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging7 the price differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe--a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks creating a Fortress8 Europe with a vengeance9.
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes . The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing11 and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper12 rivals such as Diesel13, is no longer strong enough to command premium14 prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
注：本文选自Economist; 11/24/2001, Vol. 361 Issue 8249, p58, 1/2p
注：本文习题命题模仿对象2001年考试真题text 5
1.Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?
[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.
[B]only the Levis maker can decide the prices of the jeans.
[C] The ruling has protected Levis from price dumping.
[D] Levis jeans should be sold at a high price .
2.Guccis success shows that _______.
[A]Gucci has successfully saved its own image.
[B] It has changed its fate with its own effort.
[C]Opening its own stores is the key to success.
[D] It should be the courts duty to save its image.
3.The word specious in the context probably means _______.
[A]responsible for oneself
[B] having too many doubts
[C] not as it seems to be
[D]raising misunderstanding
4.According to the passage, the doomed15 fate of Levis is caused by such factors except that ________.
[A]the rivals are competitive
[B]it fails to command premium prices
[C]market forces have their own rules
[D]the court fails to give some help
5.The authors attitude towards Levis prospect16 seems to be _______.
[A] biased17
[B] indifferent
[C] puzzling
[D] objective
答案：BBCDD
篇章分析
本文的结构形式为提出问题----剖析问题。在第一段第一提出问题,指出欧洲法庭对特易购超市做出的裁决。第二段指出当事方对同一事件的不同怎么看和讲解。第三段指出争论的核心问题在于是不是应该借用法庭达到一些商业目的，并以古奇为例说明答案为否定。第四段对利维的前景做出了评价和剖析。
词语注解
seething [`si:TIN] adj.沸腾的, 火热的
foul [faJl]adj.下流的，粗俗的：
segment [5se^mEnt]v.分割
innovation [InE5veIFn] n.改革, 革新
specious [5spi:FEs] adj. 似是而非的; 好像正确的，但实质却是谬误的
arbitrage18 [5B:bItrIdV] v. 套汇, 套利买卖
with a vengeance [5vendVEns]猛烈地;极度地
licensing [5laIsEnsIN] n.注册登记
discount [5dIskaJnt] n.打折
resort [rI5zC:t] vi.求助, 诉诸
premium [5pri:mIEm] n.额外成本, 奖金, 奖赏, 保险费, 贴水
难句突破
1.Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice.
主体句式：Levi Strauss persuaded that
结构剖析：that之后是一个宾语从句；by之后的句子做随着状语来修饰宾语从句；宾语从句中which又引导了一个非限制性定语从句。
句子译文：利维斯图尔斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利维牛仔服与肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一块便宜销售这一做法正在损害其形象，因而也影响到其品牌价格，这必然会使商品缺少新意，最后致使买家可选范围大大缩小。
题目剖析
1.答案为B，属事实细节题。原文对应信息是should not be allowed to sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.意思是只有事先经过牛仔裤生产厂家的赞同才能优惠销售。是不是只有生产厂家才能决定价格，大家不能而知。
2.答案为B，属推理判断题。文中提到问题的实质是whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this.后又以古奇 saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.为例，说明它的成功并非诉诸法庭，而是通过自己的努力和尝试。
3.答案为C ，属猜词题。第二段开头提出了利维公司对特易购的指责，后又提出了特易购的反驳建议，前后两者之间的看法应该是相反的。从而可猜出该词的意思。
4.答案为D，属推理判断题。原文对应信息是最后一段。
5.答案为D，属情感态度题。作者没任何偏颇的讲解整个事件。
参考译文
衣裤套装
在利维斯图尔斯公司同泰斯科连锁超市的冲突中，欧洲法庭站在利维一边
法庭的裁决使买家感到义愤填膺，也使不少人觉得这对自由贸易者来讲显然是一桩违规裁决。11月20日，欧洲法庭对泰斯科这家英国连锁超市做出了如下判决：泰斯科不可以从欧盟以外的国家进口利维斯图尔斯公司生产的牛仔裤；未经牛仔制造商的许可，不能减价销售。具备讽刺意味的是，这项裁决是依据一道欧盟商标指令做出的。该指令的目的在于保护当地、而非美国制造商免受价格倾销导致的损害。其内涵是，任何一家拥有自己品牌的公司都可给我们的商品定位，并以适合的方法分割市场，譬如利维牛仔裤，它需要像古姿牌手提包一样高价销售。
利维斯图尔斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利维牛仔服与肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一块便宜销售这一做法正在损害其形象，因而也影响到其品牌价格，这必然会使商品缺少新意，最后致使买家可选范围大大缩小。买家团体和泰斯科却觉得，利维公司一案貌似有理，实则不然。泰斯科争辩说，它只不过从美国和欧洲销售利维牛仔服饰的差价中套利。这是一种在金融市场每天进行上百万次、并使买家真的受益的商业行为。泰斯科一直以低于利维斯图尔斯公司授权专卖店一半的价格每周销售15,000条牛仔裤。泰斯科公司全球非食品类产品采购主管克里斯廷克罗斯觉得，这一裁决会冒设置欧洲堡垒的巨大风险。
这场激烈的争论还将继续进行下去，所涉及的范围将远远超出休闲装业。核心问题不在于品牌是不是需要通过控制销售方法来维护其形象，而在于法院是不是有责任来帮助其达到这一目的。意大利品牌服装公司古姿公司因为许可营运管理松懈和其产品在品牌折扣店里过度揭秘，其形象正在遭到损害并没依赖法庭，而是通过暂停与第三方提供商的合同、更好的控制产品销售，与开专卖店等方法挽救了我们的命。目前已经非常难找到优惠销售古姿商品的地方了。
品牌专家觉得，利维斯图尔斯公司正在逐步丧失其市场占有率，而让坐落于像迪赛如此市场信息颇为灵通的角逐对手。利维斯图尔斯公司已无力控制品牌溢价。在市场机制有哪些用途下，像利维如此的一般品牌大概渐渐消失，进而被新的品牌所取代。因为其价格遭到法庭保护，利维斯图尔斯公司或许会再保持一段时间，但没任何一个法庭会使它死而复生，再度成为驰名品牌。
