學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
Calvin Klein, Inc. vs. Warnaco Group, Inc.
內容大綱
On May 30, 2000, Calvin Klein, Inc. (CKI) filed suit against Warnaco Group, Inc. and Linda Wachner, its CEO, for breaching its jeanswear licensing and distribution contract and, in so doing, diluting the equity of its brand. On June 26, 2000, Warnaco countered with its own suit, denying the major allegation of trademark dilution and justifying distribution through warehouse clubs as acceptable business practice. The countersuit further claimed that CKI had, in fact, breached the license and eroded the brand through its own strategies and practices. The lawsuits were precedent setting: This was the first time a licensed manufacturer/distributor had been charged with brand equity dilution or a designer held accountable for ineffective brand advertising. It was a case that would potentially rewrite the rules of fashion licensing and distribution, and bring into the limelight the tensions faced by every brand steward attempting to balance revenue growth goals with preservation of the equity of the brand. This case presents extensive background facts.