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 brandswhich 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 Europea 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 。 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. 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 doomed 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 prospect seems to be _______. [A] biased [B] indifferent [C] puzzling [D] objective 答案:BBCDD
英语口语:超奏效的简短赞美
四个英语短语不能望文生义
六个让人晕头转向的英文句子
今年泼水节还应该"泼水"吗?
春节小知识
表达“心烦”的10句英语
美剧中30句经典俚语完美解析
英语词汇:蛇年一起来说“蛇”
分手要说的最“拽”十句话
中秋节相关英语
三八妇女节必备祝福语录
五个手指怎么说
几句谚语令你的口语表达更加动人
40个句子英语翻译难倒专业学生
[口语]什么是“中等收入陷阱”
[口语]19句口语让你吵出彪悍气场
[谚语]劳动谚语大集合
最常用的英语口语大汇总
[口语]奔三人群经历的“成年危机”
感恩节聚会对话2
[翻译]美国年轻人这样表达“放松”
乞讨儿童 child beggar
50句英语成语:字面和实际意思大不同
流浪女孩的励志毕业演讲
一定要弄懂这些常见单词和词组的用法
租房英语大搜罗
[口语]经典《变形金刚》“汽车人,变形!”英文怎么说?
生活口语:如何用英语订飞机票
科学家:屎壳郎为世上力量最大的昆虫
春节英语祝福语
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |