一级毛片免费不卡在线视频,国产日批视频免费在线观看,菠萝菠萝蜜在线视频免费视频,欧美日韩亚洲无线码在线观看,久久精品这里精品,国产成人综合手机在线播放,色噜噜狠狠狠综合曰曰曰,琪琪视频

法律類(lèi)文章:TROUSER SUIT

時(shí)間:2023-05-04 17:45:27 考研英語(yǔ) 我要投稿
  • 相關(guān)推薦

法律類(lèi)文章精選:TROUSER SUIT

1 TROUSER SUIT

法律類(lèi)文章精選:TROUSER SUIT

  The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco

  Dateline: New York

         IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided 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 maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark 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 specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging 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 Fortress Europe with a vengeance".

  The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how

《.doc》
将本文的Word文档下载到电脑,方便收藏和打印
推荐度:
点击下载文档

【法律類(lèi)文章:TROUSER SUIT】相關(guān)文章:

Follow suit:仿效別人05-04

如何撰寫(xiě)教育教學(xué)類(lèi)文章04-28

怎樣撰寫(xiě)“解題指導(dǎo)”類(lèi)的文章04-30

法律類(lèi)社會(huì)實(shí)踐報(bào)告12-10

學(xué)會(huì)用法律保護(hù)自己文章12-30

淺談生活情感類(lèi)文章的技巧指導(dǎo)05-01

自然科學(xué)類(lèi)文章閱讀淺談04-30

介紹我的法律類(lèi)自學(xué)考試經(jīng)驗(yàn)04-29

作文 議論類(lèi)的文章應(yīng)當(dāng)以論點(diǎn)為宜04-24

情感類(lèi)文章教學(xué)心得體會(huì)04-26

法律類(lèi)文章精選:TROUSER SUIT

1 TROUSER SUIT

法律類(lèi)文章精選:TROUSER SUIT

  The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco

  Dateline: New York

         IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided 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 maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark 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 specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging 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 Fortress Europe with a vengeance".

  The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how