蒂芙尼 对 艾芙尼：奢侈珠宝品牌，为何盯上一个中国卫生巾牌子？

先说这两个主角。

Let's start with the two main characters.

第一位，是大名鼎鼎的蒂芙尼，一个来自美国、如今归在法国奢侈品巨头 LVMH 旗下的珠宝品牌。

The first is the illustrious Tiffany, a jewelry brand from the US that now sits under the French luxury giant LVMH.

一枚小小的钻戒，动辄就要几万甚至几十万，是无数人心里"求婚"和"高级"的代名词。

A single small diamond ring can easily cost tens or even hundreds of thousands, and to countless people it's a byword for "proposal" and "luxury."

第二位，是一家中国公司旗下的卫生巾品牌，名字叫艾芙尼。

The second is a sanitary-pad brand owned by a Chinese company, called Alffany.

你把这两个名字放在一起念一念：蒂芙尼，艾芙尼。

Say the two names one after the other: Tiffany (Difuni), Alffany (Aifuni).

发音是不是像得有点过分？

Isn't the pronunciation almost suspiciously alike?

有意思的是，"艾芙尼"这三个字，还谐音"爱护你"，本身寓意也挺温柔。

Interestingly, the characters for "Alffany" are also a homophone for "care for you," a rather tender meaning in itself.

可问题就出在这个"像"上。

But the whole problem lies in that "likeness."

一个卖的是天价钻石，一个卖的是日用的卫生巾，两者八竿子打不着。

One sells sky-high-priced diamonds, the other sells everyday sanitary pads — the two are worlds apart.

但在蒂芙尼看来，名字这么接近，就是在打它的擦边球，容易让消费者产生联想。

But in Tiffany's eyes, a name this close is riding its coattails and could lead consumers to make an association.

在商业世界里，一个品牌的名字，就是它的"商标"，是受法律保护的核心资产。

In the business world, a brand's name is its "trademark" — a core asset protected by law.

于是，蒂芙尼动用法律手段，想让"艾芙尼"这个商标彻底无效。

So Tiffany turned to legal means, seeking to have the "Alffany" trademark declared entirely invalid.

这场拉锯，其实已经打了好几年。

This tug-of-war has actually been going on for several years.

早些年，艾芙尼的一个相关商标，就曾被认定与蒂芙尼近似，被判无效。

Years ago, one related Alffany trademark was found similar to Tiffany's and ruled invalid.

可到了去年，艾芙尼另一个商标，却在蒂芙尼的反对声中，成功注册了下来。

But last year, another Alffany trademark was successfully registered despite Tiffany's objections.

蒂芙尼自然不肯罢休，继续提出异议。

Tiffany, naturally, wouldn't let it go and kept filing challenges.

如今，这个案子打到了北京市高级人民法院，进入二审阶段，前不久刚刚开庭。

Now the case has made it to the Beijing High People's Court, entering the second-instance stage, with a hearing held just recently.

法院要判断的核心只有一个：这个商标，到底算不算和蒂芙尼构成混淆。

The court has just one core question to settle: whether this trademark actually creates confusion with Tiffany.

艾芙尼那边则回应得很干脆：我们从没想过要蹭蒂芙尼的名气。

Alffany's side responded bluntly: we never once thought of riding on Tiffany's fame.

在他们看来，一个卖珠宝，一个卖卫生巾，消费者根本不可能混为一谈。

As they see it, one sells jewelry and one sells sanitary pads — there's no way consumers would conflate the two.

这件事一传开，网上立刻吵成一片。

As soon as the story spread, the internet erupted in argument.

支持蒂芙尼的人说：名字模仿得这么明显，本来就该管一管。

Tiffany's supporters say: imitation this blatant should be reined in.

但也有不少人替艾芙尼抱不平：两家产品风马牛不相及，一个巨头何必揪着一个小品牌不放？

But plenty of others feel Alffany is being wronged: the two products are utterly unrelated, so why would a giant keep hounding a small brand?

其实，这样的商标之争，这些年在中国越来越常见。

In fact, trademark disputes like this have become more and more common in China in recent years.

越来越多的国际大牌，开始高度警惕自己的名字，被本土品牌"借光"。

More and more international heavyweights are growing highly wary of local brands "borrowing" their names.

一个名字，究竟能值多少钱、又该被保护到什么程度，这背后是一整套关于知识产权的博弈。

How much a name is really worth, and how far it should be protected — behind that lies a whole game of intellectual-property strategy.

说到底，这场"蒂芙尼对艾芙尼"的较量，谁是谁非，还得等法院最终的判决。

Ultimately, in this "Tiffany vs. Alffany" contest, who's right and who's wrong will have to wait for the court's final ruling.

但它留给我们的思考，或许比结果本身更有意思。

But the questions it leaves us may be more interesting than the outcome itself.

好，今天就聊到这里，我们下期再见。

OK, that's all for today — see you next time.