古馳捍衛(wèi)商標權(quán) 香港冥品店紙鞋下架
香港——在香港的渣華道，一家店里擺著一雙嶄新的棕色皮革古馳(Gucci)樂福鞋，外面周到地裹了一層玻璃紙——它的售價不到3美元，簡直是一輩子最劃算的買賣。
Just not this lifetime.
只不過不是這輩子。
The shoes are paper replicas, meant to be burned as offerings to relatives who have died — amodern twist on an old Chinese custom. At specialty shops across this city, the bereaved canchoose from an impressive array of goods to send to their departed loved ones, includingItalian sports cars, smartphones, six-packs of beer, cigarettes, dress shirts and sport jackets.
這雙鞋是用紙做成的仿制品，用來作為祭品燒給去世的親人——一項中國古老風(fēng)俗加入了一點現(xiàn)代變化。在遍布全港的專營店里，失去親人的顧客可以從品類相當(dāng)繁多的商品中，給逝者挑選祭品，包括意大利跑車、智能手機、半打裝啤酒、香煙、正裝襯衫和休閑夾克。
One store, next to Hong Kong’s Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery, even sells paper replicas ofMcDonald’s value meals, complete with fries, soda and a package of something called “ChickenMuNeggtc.”
香港萬佛寺旁邊的一家店里甚至有紙做的麥當(dāng)勞超值套餐賣，套餐里有薯條、飲料和一包叫做“ChickenMuNeggtc”(“麥樂雞”的錯誤拼寫。——譯注)的東西。
But the Gucci handbags and shoes that grandmother may have cooed over when she wasamong the living now appear to be out of her ethereal reach. A shopkeeper quickly snatched theloafers away from one inquiring customer, explaining that they were no longer for sale.
但如今看來，在冥界的奶奶可能將無法享用自己生前心儀的古馳包和鞋子了。一名店主迅速地從一名詢問情況的顧客手里拿走了那雙樂福鞋，說它已經(jīng)不再對外出售。
It seems Gucci’s zeal to protect its brand extends into the hereafter.
看來古馳保護自己品牌的熱情已經(jīng)延伸到了死后的世界。
Last week, its parent company, Paris-based Kering, sent a letter to six local stores that sell thepaper offerings, telling them to stop selling replicas of Gucci products because they were usingits famous trademark that graces shoes, wallets, hats, jewelry and women’s purses.
上周，古馳的母公司、設(shè)在巴黎的開云(Kering)致信香港六家賣紙質(zhì)祭品的商店，要求它們停止售賣仿古馳產(chǎn)品的祭品，因為它們使用了該公司的著名商標。這個商標會出現(xiàn)在古馳的鞋、錢包、帽子、珠寶和女裝手包上。
“What we are trying to do is let them know that Gucci is a trademark and we are trying toprotect it,” Charlotte Judet, a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for Kering, said by telephone. “We fully respect the funeral context.”
“我們的目的是讓他們知道，古馳是一個商標，我們在努力保護它，”開云駐香港發(fā)言人夏洛特·茹代(CharlotteJudet)在電話上說。“我們完全尊重喪葬祭祀這一用場本身。”
Elaborate paper offerings for the dead are for sale the world over, available for purchase bythe living across Asia, from Cambodia to mainland China. In China, the bereaved, with a fewclicks of a mouse or taps on a smartphone, can buy replicas of everything from bonsai plants toflat-screen televisions for home delivery.
全世界都有用于敬獻給逝者的精美紙質(zhì)祭品。從柬埔寨到中國內(nèi)地，亞洲各地的消費者都可以買到。在中國，只需點幾下鼠標或智能手機，失去親人的消費者便能買到從盆栽植物到平板電視的一切仿制品，并且還是送貨上門。
As incomes have soared and consumerism has taken hold across the continent, thecardboard replicas, once limited to fake currency, have become increasingly elaborate. Oneshop offers a paper wall-unit air conditioner, presumably for relatives who may be in the lowerreaches of the hereafter.
隨著收入的增加以及消費主義在全亞洲的發(fā)展，曾經(jīng)僅限于紙錢的紙質(zhì)祭品變得越來越精美。其中一家商店出售紙做的壁掛式空調(diào)，大概是給死后可能要到冥界更底層的親屬使用的。
The practice has even migrated across the ocean. In 2011 in New York, one Chinatownshopkeeper was arrested for selling cardboard replicas of designer handbags and loafers, andcharged with copyright infringement.
這種做法甚至已經(jīng)傳到了大洋彼岸。在2011年，紐約唐人街的一名店主因出售用硬紙板做的名牌包和樂福鞋仿品而被捕，并被控侵犯版權(quán)。
But Gucci chose to make a stand in Hong Kong, not in Beijing, New York or Bangkok. The forcesat play essentially define Hong Kong’s place in the world. Here is a city that combines a no-holds-barred consumer culture, a strong bond to China’s old traditions, and a robust legalsystem, inherited from the British, that respects and enforces intellectual property rights.Hong Kong is, at its essence, a fusion of Eastern culture, global capitalism and Western law.
但古馳選擇在香港，而不是在北京、紐約或曼谷來捍衛(wèi)自己。此事涉及的各方力量基本上定義了香港在世界上的位置。這座城市將百無禁忌的消費文化、與中國古老傳統(tǒng)的緊密聯(lián)系和強健的法律制度結(jié)合在了一起。香港的法律制度繼承自英國，尊重并保護知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。這座城市在本質(zhì)上是東方文化、全球資本主義和西方法律的融合體。
“People in Hong Kong are law-abiding,” Alice Lee, an associate professor of law at theUniversity of Hong Kong who focuses on intellectual property, said in a telephone interview. “We have had the benefit of British rule for such a long time.”
“香港民眾遵紀守法，”主要研究知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的香港大學(xué)法學(xué)院副教授李雪菁(Alice Lee)在接受電話采訪時說。“長期以來我們一直享受著英國的統(tǒng)治帶來的這個好處。”
But Ms. Lee said Gucci would have a difficult time proving that makers of paper offeringsinfringed on its trademark. To successfully sue for trademark infringement, she said, acompany has to demonstrate that people confuse the cardboard replicas with real Gucciproducts, which is highly unlikely.
但李雪菁說，古馳要證明紙質(zhì)祭品的生產(chǎn)商侵犯了自己的商標會比較困難。她說，要想成功地提起商標侵權(quán)訴訟，公司必須證明人們混淆了用硬紙板做的祭品和真正的古馳產(chǎn)品，但這種可能性非常低。
Her colleague Haochen Sun, a professor who studies trademark protection of luxury brands,said Gucci might have a case under Hong Kong law if it argued that the paper offerings, sold inshops only blocks from the company’s own retail outlets, blurred “the distinctiveness” of Gucci’sbrand or caused it harm.
出售紙質(zhì)祭品的店鋪，與古馳自己的零售店只隔了幾個街區(qū)。李雪菁的同事、研究奢侈品牌商標保護的教授孫皓琛表示，在香港的法律下，如果提出那些祭品模糊了古馳品牌的“獨特性”，或是給品牌造成了傷害，古馳的官司也許還有的打。
The subtleties of trademark law have yet to trickle down to the street level.
街邊的商販尚不了解商標法的微妙之處。
Instead of laughter, Gucci’s letter, which threatened no legal action and asked for nocompensation, prompted compliance from some of the shops that sell the paper offerings.Along Java Road, Gucci-branded offerings for the dead disappeared from the shelves, asshopkeepers feared that their tiny businesses could collapse if subjected to a lawsuit.
古馳的信未威脅要采取法律行動，也未要求賠償，但它并沒有引來笑聲，而是促使部分售賣紙質(zhì)祭品的店鋪服從了信中的要求。古馳品牌的祭品從渣華道沿街的貨架上消失了，因為店主害怕如果惹上官司，他們的小本生意會遭遇滅頂之災(zāi)。
Sitting on a stool in the back of one shop, past the incense and ersatz packs of cigarettes frombrands like “Danhill,” Lucky Strlke,” “Marlbero” and “Sailem,” one proprietor, who asked to beidentified by only her last name, Chan, said she and others had little choice because theirbusinesses were so small.
在其中一家店里，只愿透露自己姓陳(音)的店主坐在后面的凳子上，鋪面上是香燭和一包包仿制香煙，品牌包括Danhill、Lucky Strlke、Marlbero、Sailem等。她說她們這些人別無選擇，因為生意實在太小了。
For Gucci, it was an easy win, even though its letter did draw some ridicule in the local press.
對古馳來說，這次贏得很容易，盡管那封信在本地媒體中受到了一些嘲笑。
“The symbolism of a global, multibillion-dollar luxury company ‘warning’ perhaps some ofthe poorest retailers in the city over items that could not ever be taken for the real thing justseems a little bullying,” Jing Zhang, fashion editor for The South China Morning Post, wroteTuesday.
“因為永遠都不會被當(dāng)做正品的物品，一家資產(chǎn)數(shù)十億美元的跨國奢侈品公司，對或許是本市最窮的零售商發(fā)出‘警告’，似乎有些持強凌弱的的味道，”《南華早報》的時裝編輯章婧周二寫道。
Ms. Lee, the law professor, had a different interpretation. “Purpose served,” she said. “Theywant to show the world that they are taking their intellectual property rights seriously.”
對此，前述法學(xué)院教授李雪菁則有不同的解讀。“目的達到了，”她說。“他們想向全世界表明，他們很重視知識產(chǎn)權(quán)。”
The shopkeepers lament what they see as the absurdity of it all. Their target market — thedead — does not appear to intersect with the well-heeled, or aspiring-to-be wealthy, living andbreathing Gucci customers who frequent the outlet’s shops in Hong Kong, one of thecompany’s top markets.
認為此事荒謬至極的店主表達了自己的不滿。他們的目標市場——亡者——與經(jīng)常光顧該公司香港門店的那些富有——或渴望富有——的大活人并無交集。香港是該公司最大的市場之一。
“Our customers are totally different,” said one shopkeeper outside Ten Thousand BuddhaMonastery, who gave only his surname, Lan. “They burn these things to send to the spirits.”
“我們的顧客完全不同，”萬佛寺外一名只愿透露自己姓藍(音)的店主說。“他們是把這些東西燒給亡靈的。”
Neither Ms. Chan nor Mr. Lan had received a letter from Gucci. Ms. Chan read about it in a localnewspaper and quickly moved to exorcise her store of any paper replicas of Gucci projects.
前述陳姓店主和這位藍姓店主都沒收到古馳的信。在通過當(dāng)?shù)匾患覉蠹埩私庥嘘P(guān)這封信的情況后，陳姓店主迅速行動，撤下了店里所有的仿古馳紙質(zhì)祭品。
Actually, the word “Gucci” rarely appears in the world of paper offerings. In almost all instances,the enterprising manufacturers — from somewhere in mainland China — alter the spelling.Those “Gucci loafers” at the shop next door were labeled “Guuci.” Mr. Lan, who as of Mondayhad not heard of the warning letter, had one paper “Gueei” purse on offer.
實際上，在紙質(zhì)祭品的世界里，“Gucci”這個詞很少出現(xiàn)。具有創(chuàng)業(yè)精神的制造商——來自中國大陸某個地方——幾乎總是會改變拼寫。隔壁店里的那些“古馳樂福鞋”上的標簽是“Guuci”。那位藍姓店主一直到周一都沒聽說警告信的事，他店里的一個紙做的小包上寫著“Gueei”。
Ms. Chan said the whole idea of Gucci threatening such action was odd. “It has nothing to dowith us,” she said.
陳姓店主說，古馳威脅采取行動這件事很奇怪。“這和我們毫無關(guān)系，”她說。
