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 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 licensing 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 hipper rivals such as Diesel， is no longer strong enough to command premium 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(1)：本文選自Economist; 11/24/2001， Vol. 361 Issue 8249， p58， 1/2p

　　注(2)：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對象2001年真題text 5(其中因2001年真題text 5只有4個題目，所以本文第5題模仿參照對象為1999年 Text 1的第4題。)

　　1. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?

　　[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.

　　[B]Only the Levi‘s maker can decide the prices of the jeans.

　　[C] The ruling has protected Levi‘s from price dumping.

　　[D] Levi‘s jeans should be sold at a high price .

　　2. Gucci‘s 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 court‘s duty to save its image.

　　3. The word “specious”(line 12， paragraph 2) 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 doomed fate of Levi‘s 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 author‘s attitude towards Levi’s prospect seems to be _______.

　　[A] biased

　　[B] indifferent

　　[C] puzzling

　　[D] objective

　　答案：BBCDD

　　篇章剖析

　　本文的結(jié)構(gòu)形式為提出問題——分析問題。在第一段首先提出問題，指出歐洲法庭對特易購超市做出的裁決。第二段指出當(dāng)事方對同一事件的不同看法和解釋。第三段指出爭論的核心問題在于是否應(yīng)該借助法庭達(dá)到一些商業(yè)目的，并以古奇(Gucci)為例說明答案為否定。第四段對利維(Levi‘s)的前景做出了評價和分析。

　　詞匯注釋

　　seething adj.沸騰的， 火熱的

　　foul adj.下流的，粗俗的：

　　segment v.分割

　　innovation n.改革， 創(chuàng)新

　　specious adj. 似是而非的; 似乎正確的，但實際卻是謬誤的

　　arbitrage v. 套匯， 套利交易

　　with a vengeance 猛烈地;極度地

　　licensing n.注冊登記

　　discount n.折扣

　　resort vi.求助， 訴諸

　　premium n.額外費用， 獎金， 獎賞， 保險費， (貨幣兌現(xiàn)的)貼水

　　難句突破

　　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.

　　主體句式：Levi Strauss persuaded that …

　　結(jié)構(gòu)分析：that之后是一個賓語從句;by之后的句子做伴隨狀語來修飾賓語從句;賓語從句中which又引導(dǎo)了一個非限制性定語從句。

　　句子譯文：利維?斯圖爾斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利維牛仔服與肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉價銷售這一做法正在損害其形象，因而也影響到其品牌價位，這勢必會使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終導(dǎo)致消費者可選范圍大大縮小。

　　題目分析

　　1.答案為B，屬事實細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對應(yīng)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“只有事先經(jīng)過牛仔褲生產(chǎn)商的同意才能打折銷售�！笔欠裰挥猩�產(chǎn)商才能決定價格，我們不得而知。

　　2.答案為B，屬推理判斷題。文中提到問題的實質(zhì)是“whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this.”后又以古奇(Gucci) “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.”為例，說明它的成功并不是訴諸法庭，而是通過自身的努力和嘗試。

　　3.答案為C ，屬猜詞題。第二段開頭提出了利維公司(Levi‘s)對特易購(Tesco)的指責(zé)，后又提出了特易購的反駁意見，前后兩者之間的觀點應(yīng)該是相反的。從而可猜出該詞的含義。

　　4.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。原文對應(yīng)信息是最后一段。

　　5.答案為D，屬情感態(tài)度題。作者沒有任何偏頗的闡述整個事件。

　　參考譯文

　　法庭的裁決使消費者感到義憤填膺，也使很多人認(rèn)為這對自由貿(mào)易者來說顯然是一樁違規(guī)裁決。11月20日，歐洲法庭對泰斯科(Tesco)這家英國連鎖超市做出了如下判決：泰斯科不能從歐盟之外的國家進(jìn)口利維?斯圖爾斯公司生產(chǎn)的牛仔褲;未經(jīng)牛仔制造商的許可，不得減價銷售。具有諷刺意味的是，這項裁決是根據(jù)一道歐盟商標(biāo)指令做出的。該指令的目的在于保護(hù)本地、而非美國制造商免受價格傾銷造成的損害。其內(nèi)涵是，任何一家擁有自己品牌的公司都可給自己的產(chǎn)品定位，并以適當(dāng)?shù)姆绞椒指钍袌�，比如利維牛仔褲，它必須像古姿(Gucci)牌手提包一樣高價銷售。

　　利維?斯圖爾斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利維牛仔服與肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉價銷售這一做法正在損害其形象，因而也影響到其品牌價位，這勢必會使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終導(dǎo)致消費者可選范圍大大縮小。消費者團(tuán)體和泰斯科卻認(rèn)為，利維公司一案(的判決)貌似有理，實則不然。泰斯科爭辯說，它只是從美國和歐洲銷售利維牛仔服裝的差價中套利。這是一種在金融市場天天進(jìn)行上百萬次、并使消費者真正受益的商業(yè)行為。泰斯科一直以低于利維?斯圖爾斯公司授權(quán)專賣店一半的價格每周銷售15，000條牛仔褲。泰斯科公司全球非食品類商品采購主管克里斯廷。克羅斯認(rèn)為，這一裁決會冒“設(shè)置歐洲堡壘”的巨大風(fēng)險。

　　這場激烈的爭論還將繼續(xù)進(jìn)行下去，所涉及的范圍將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出休閑服裝業(yè)(季諾。大衛(wèi)多夫香水制造商也和利維。斯圖爾斯聯(lián)手起訴)。核心問題不在于品牌是否需要通過控制銷售方式來維護(hù)其形象，而在于法院是否有責(zé)任來幫助其達(dá)到這一目的。意大利品牌服飾公司古姿公司—由于許可經(jīng)營管理松懈和其商品在折扣店里過度曝光，其形象正在受到損害—并沒有依靠法庭，而是通過中止與第三方供應(yīng)商的合同、更好的控制商品銷售，以及開專賣店等方式挽救了自己的命運�，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)很難找到打折銷售古姿產(chǎn)品的地方了。

　　品牌專家認(rèn)為，利維?斯圖爾斯公司正在逐步喪失其市場占有率，而讓位于像迪賽(Diesel)這樣市場信息頗為靈通的競爭對手。利維?斯圖爾斯公司已無力控制品牌溢價。在市場機制的作用下，像利維這樣的一般品牌很有可能逐漸消失，進(jìn)而被新的品牌所取代。由于其價格受到法庭保護(hù)，利維?斯圖爾斯公司可能會再維持一段時間，但是沒有任何一個法庭會使它起死回生，再度成為知名品牌。

　　編輯推薦：

　　各省市2015年考研報考費用匯總

　　2015年考研網(wǎng)上正式報名入口已開通 點擊進(jìn)入

　　2015年考研政治資料：2014年國內(nèi)外時事政治熱點

　　2015年考研政治十大重要考點預(yù)測

　　考試吧考研題庫(新增數(shù)學(xué)三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗!