考研英语报刊文章阅读及_剖析.docVIP

. 考研英语报刊文章阅读及剖析（1） 　　The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco 　　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 Americas 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: Levis 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 Levis case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levis 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 Levis jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tescos 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