By EO's Editorial Board
Issue 618, May 6, 2013
News, cover
Translated by Laura Lin
Original article: [Chinese]

After a five-year court battle, Adidas has finally settled with Adivon (阿迪王), a Chinese sportswear company with a name and logo that is very similar to that of the global brand. Adivon has agreed to transfer its Chinese trademarks and triangular logo to the German multinational and has agreed to never use them again.

Meanwhile, another unfinished lawsuit has aroused even more attention. This one is between Qiaodan Sports Company Limited (乔丹体育) and former NBA basketball player Michael Jordan. The pronunciation of the two names in Chinese is the same. The Chinese sportswear company maintains that is has not infringed upon the Air Jordan trademark and is actually now suing Jordan for suing them two years ago just as Qiaodan was set to debut on the stock market.

Qiaodan Sports argues that the Chinese name Qiaodan (乔丹) is only a translation of the common surname "Jordan." The company also argues that the brand actually chose the name because it means "plants in the south" (南方之草木) in Chinese.

As one online commentator put it, Qiaodan's attempts to justify their use of the brand was "ridiculous" (神解释) or to put it another way, the company was "speaking blindly with eyes wide open" (睁着眼说瞎话).

This kind of explanation shows both a lack of respect for the facts and is also an insult to the intelligence of consumers.

For most people familiar with sport, the Chinese word "qiaodan" is clearly linked to Michael Jordan. That a Chinese company can be so bold as to claim that there is not relation is connected to the fact that up until now, Chinese culture has given too much leeway to a culture of knock-offs or shanzhai (山寨) as it's referred to in Chinese.

Perhaps it's due to the fact that mainstream culture is somehow less appealing and convincing, that shanzhai culture has such a large market in China.

Many aim to seek legitimacy under the banner of shanzhai. It can be said at both a cultural and business sense that the concept is gradually changing.

What has to be clarified is that the concept of shanzhai has both a cultural and commercial meaning, which are not necessarily the same.

In cultural terms, it is meant as an ironic confrontation with the dominant culture by those outside the mainstream. Commercially speaking, shanzhai refers simply to pirating the product designs of famous brands, copying them at very low cost, and taking advantage of others to gain profits - just like Adivon or Qiaodan.

However, to a large extent, these two concepts have become confused.

As the divide between the rich and the poor creates tension and class stratification, imitation becomes the main way for people to vent their emotions and to express their views. In a certain way, shanzhai acts as some kind of lubricant or buffer zone for society.

Many Chinese companies have managed to find a way of turning this into a business opportunity. They find that via brand imitation they can, at very low cost, circumvent the ethical and legal risks of taking advantage of the labor of others.
 
A lot of these pirate brands do not face criticism, condemnation or sanction. They disregard others' intellectual property rights. They actually gain widespread sympathy in China. Some Chinese companies even take the opportunity to label themselves as a "national brand" and become a "hero" for taking on foreign commercial forces.

It is questionable whether or not these imitation Chinese brands that beat the drum of serving the nation actually serve the interests of our country and our people. Many of these so-called Chinese national brands are simply besmirching the entire nation's reputation for their own benefit.

When a disgraceful lawsuit is finally settled, some copycat brands actually come out on top. Nevertheless, in essence, they are running up a debt on the credit account of the entire nation around the world. In the end, every Chinese person will have to pick up the bill. Has anyone ever worked out how much we owe?

We have all along been claiming we need to improve China's soft power and make China an esteemed country so that it has access to a better business environment internationally.
When are we ever going to get the respect we long for if our firms are destroying our credibility?

Quite a number of Chinese sympathizers of the imitators have suggested that copycatting is a good business model. It nurtures innovation and vitality. However, if we look around we know none of the Chinese copycat enterprises ever make it onto any global list of business success stories.

Take mobile phones as an example. China has provided most of the world's brand-imitating mobile phones, yet it contributes next to nothing to this industry's innovation. China has yet to give birth to a brand in this field that is capable of threatening Samsung or Apple's position. Though we can't attribute all of Chinese firms' lack of creativity just to the copycat culture, it is undoubtedly part of the problem.

When imitation or piracy becomes rife, the bad money drives out the good money. If this kind of behavior is not only tolerated but actually encouraged, it raises a big question mark over the sustainable and healthy development of the Chinese market.

News in English via World Crunch (link)