國際反假聯盟與電商巨頭阿里巴巴的衝突

A collision last month between members of the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) and ecommerce giant, Alibaba, is a tale of high emotions, larger-than-life characters and festering animosity between brand owners and the world’s largest online platform. Beneath the noise, however, are serious questions of how to cope with an ocean of fakes.

國際反假聯盟(IACC)部分成員與電商巨頭阿里巴巴(Alibaba)上月的衝突，是一個傳奇人物之間慷慨激昂的故事，展現了品牌所有人與全球最大在線平臺之間不斷深化的敵意。然而，在這場風波的背後，是一個嚴肅的問題：如何應對假貨氾濫？

Courts worldwide are grappling with whether to place the burden of policing online counterfeit on platforms, rights owners or both. Brand owners chafe at having to commit vast resources to policing online platforms. Platforms protest that filtering every transaction and trying to determine what is counterfeit across all industry sectors is mission impossible.

世界各地的法庭都在糾結於一個問題：對在線假貨執法的責任應該由誰來承擔——平臺還是權利所有人、抑或雙方應共同承擔？品牌所有人不滿於自己不得不投入大量資源監督在線平臺，平臺方則抗議稱，篩選每筆交易並努力甄別所有行業的假貨是不可能完成的任務。

We have been here before. The same problems plagued eBay. In 1999, I faced the company’s deputy general counsel, Jay Monahan, in a windowless law office in New York on behalf of a number of luxury brands. Rights holders were concerned that eBay was fostering an environment friendly to fakes. Mr Monahan was grappling with demands to rid eBay of deceptive offerings. To delist high volumes of fakes and avoid endless litigation, we had to to work together: we hammered out a constructive co-operation which has endured. How did eBay do it? By ceaselessly monitoring the seller listings on their back end and by putting extraordinary resources into developing cutting edge tools and strategies, including smart filtering, possibly the first notice-and-take down procedures for trade mark violations, stringent measures against repeat offenders and — crucially — fast response times (usually within hours) to take down notices. These methods were revolutionary then and still provide the gold standard for online retailers.

我們不是第一回置身於這樣的境地了。同樣的問題曾困擾eBay。1999年，我代表多個奢侈品牌，在紐約的一間沒有窗戶的律師辦公室裏，與eBay副總法律顧問傑伊•莫納漢(Jay Monahan)會面。當時，權利所有人擔心的是，eBay營造了有利於假貨生存的環境；莫納漢則在焦頭爛額地應對讓eBay清除假貨的要求。爲了下架大量的假貨並避免無休止的訴訟，我們必須通力合作：我們敲定了建設性的合作協議——如今該協議依然有效。eBay當時是怎麼做到的？不斷在後臺監測賣家上架的商品，並投入大量資源開發最前沿的工具和策略，包括智能篩選、對商標侵權行爲實施“收到通知即下架”（可能是首個此類流程）、對屢教不改者採取嚴厲措施，還有很關鍵的是，收到下架通知後快速響應（通常在數小時內）。這些方法當時是革命性的，現在仍是在線零售商中的最高標準。

Meg Whitman, eBay’s chief executive at the time, understood that credibility with brand owners is key.

eBay時任首席執行官梅格•惠特曼(Meg Whitman)明白，獲取品牌所有人的信任至關重要。

The company faced a choice: do as little as it could hope to get away with, or back up its rhetoric with breakthrough technology and procedures. By opting for the latter, it spawned an era of voluntary co-operation with brands.

該公司當時面臨一個選擇：是儘可能推諉，還是說到做到、拿出突破性的技術和流程。eBay選擇了後者，由此開創了與品牌自願合作的時代。

Alibaba finds itself at a similar crossroads. The Chinese company has become the world’s biggest retail online platform. Its chief executive Jack Ma was appointed to David Cameron’s business advisory group, met US President Barack Obama and Alibaba was invited to join the IACC.

如今，阿里巴巴發現自己處於類似的十字路口。這家中國公司已成爲全球最大的在線零售平臺。阿里巴巴首席執行官馬雲(Jack Ma)被任命爲戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)的商業顧問團成員，與美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)會晤，該公司還被邀請加入IACC。

This invitation, though, sparked outrage among members, with Lee Sporn, general counsel to Michael Kors, stating: “The IACC has chosen to provide cover to our most dangerous and damaging adversary.” Gucci, Michael Kors and Tiffany resigned from the anti-fakes group. Alibaba’s membership was revoked and Mr Ma cancelled his keynote speech at the IACC’s annual conference. Alibaba’s charm offensive lost its way. There is a way back however. If Alibaba develops modern weapons for the current online environment, it has the potential, like eBay, for constructive co-operation with brand owners.

然而，這種邀請引發了IACC成員的強烈不滿，時尚品牌Michael Kors的總法律顧問李•斯波恩(Lee Sporn)表示：“IACC選擇爲我們最危險且最具破壞力的敵手提供保護傘。”古馳(Gucci)、Michael Kors和蒂芙尼(Tiffany)退出了IACC。阿里巴巴的會員資格被暫停，馬雲取消了原定在IACC年度大會上的主題演講。阿里巴巴的魅力攻勢迷失了方向。然而，馬雲還有退路。如果阿里巴巴爲當前的在線環境開發出現代化武器，它就有可能像eBay那樣，與品牌所有人達成建設性的合作關係。

Pirates are more adept at using new technologies than those trying to shut them down. This has turned the fight against counterfeit sites into a “whack a mole” game. Take down a pirate page and an identical one pops up in a new location. Michael Evans, Alibaba’s president, has asserted, however, that Alibaba has “the tools to change the way this war is waged . . . using data and technology . . . to defeat the counterfeiters”. Rights holders are understandably keen for Alibaba to demonstrate the advanced tools of which it speaks. At a meeting last week, a group of British brand owners presented Alibaba with a wish list including notice and trackdown, digital fingerprinting and a piracy indicia module for red-flagging offenders. Such tracing parallels the fundamental “follow-the-money” principle. The meeting concluded on a positive note. If Alibaba delivers, it will be a game changer by stopping counterfeiting at source rather than at platform level.

與那些試圖打擊侵權的人相比，侵權者更善於使用新技術。這讓打擊假貨的活動成爲“打地鼠”遊戲。關閉一個假貨網頁，同樣的網頁又在新的地方冒出來。然而，阿里巴巴總裁邁克爾•埃文斯(Michael Evans)堅稱，阿里巴巴有“工具改變這場戰爭的進行方式……使用數據和技術……擊敗造假者”。可以理解的是，權利所有人渴望阿里巴巴實實在在地拿出它所說的先進工具。在上週的一場會議上，一羣英國品牌所有人向阿里巴巴提交了一份願望清單，包括通知和追查、數字指紋以及爲高危侵權者創建侵權標記模塊。此類追蹤方法與基本的“追蹤金錢流向”法相似。此次會議以積極的基調結束。如果阿里巴巴用實際行動滿足品牌所有人的期望，就將徹底改變反假戰爭的格局——從源頭上制止造假、而非在平臺上清除假貨。

Alibaba’s implementation of any new voluntary measures must be swift and rigorous. If not, courts and legislators will be pressed to act. Alibaba should not waste a crisis. It can turn it into an opportunity.

阿里巴巴必須迅速、嚴格地執行一切新的自願措施。不然的話，法庭和立法機構將被迫採取行動。阿里巴巴不應浪費一場危機，它可以將這場危機轉化爲機遇。