The retrial verdict of the case of a professional anti counterfeiter who claimed one million dollars

The retrial verdict of the case of "professional anti-counterfeiters" claiming millions of dollars after buying sea cucumbers was announced, but the result was that the retrial vetoed ten times the compensation, which means that the lawsuit was fought in vain.

The professional anti-counterfeiter "buying sea cucumber was deceived by the incident" has been really popular recently, after all, through this incident, I understand the existence of "professional anti-counterfeiters"; In fact, the behavior of these people is really disgusting, after all, they are not people who really fight, but just exchange for more benefits through the law.

1. The "professional anti-counterfeiter" was deceived by buying sea cucumbers, and the verdict turned out to be a veto of ten times the compensation issue With the increase of consumer awareness, we will find that the group of "professional anti-counterfeiters" continues to appear, and many people even regard this industry as a job.

Many people think that "professional anti-counterfeiters" should be a group of people who are very protective of consumers, why are "professional anti-counterfeiters" who were deceived in buying sea cucumbers and were denied tenfold compensation; The relevant law does make it clear that if you are cheated, you can demand ten times the compensation, is this act of the court to cover up the enterprise? No, in fact, the "professional anti-counterfeiter" was deceived by buying sea cucumbers is not as simple as we think, in fact, this is a case of conspiracy.

2. The "professional anti-counterfeiter" in this case was identified as having repeatedly defrauded the benefits, so the reason why the compensation application was rejected and the tenfold compensation was rejected was because the court discovered the problem of the "professional anti-counterfeiter" through other cases.

It turned out that the "professional anti-counterfeiter" who bought sea cucumbers was not the only case, and he applied for a lot of complaints at the same time in order to live more profits; When the court saw all kinds of complaints, it guessed that the so-called "professional anti-counterfeiters" are actually people who aim to make profits, and they will not think about whether it is helpful to consumers at all, and the purpose is to live ten times the compensation fee. Otherwise, these "professional anti-counterfeiting" behaviors will become more and more excessive.

Due to the multi-channel reporting of the "professional anti-counterfeiter", the court found that it did not meet the conditions for ten times the compensation.

The result of the judgment was to revoke the judgment of the second instance and not support the claim for compensation of the professional anti-counterfeiter, because the retrial court held that the professional anti-counterfeiter was suspected of malicious intent and should not be protected.

The result of the retrial was that the claim was not upheld. I think this aspect can also avoid some bad faith claims. But such counterfeit products should also be severely punished.

The result is that the claim is not supported. This professional anti-counterfeiting team is purposeful, and the court did not award compensation to the merchants.

The tenfold claim was not upheld, and the first-instance judgment was upheld. The reason was the failure to submit evidence to prove that the purchased sea cucumbers caused damage to the human body.

The court did not uphold the claim. Because they are not real consumers, the fight against counterfeiting is to ask for compensation.

The retrial of the case of "professional anti-counterfeiters" claiming millions of dollars after buying sea cucumbers, the verdict determined that Liu actually seized the loophole to buy seafood, and ordered the return and refund, and did not support 10 times the compensation.

The result of the trial was that the retrial rejected ten times the compensation, which means that the lawsuit was fought in vain.

The "professional anti-counterfeiter" who bought sea cucumbers was ruled by the court not to support the claim because he applied for several complaints at the same time, and his behavior involved disguised profits.

In fact, many people are very concerned about the fact that "professional counterfeiters" buy sea cucumbers and claim millions, on the one hand, they are worried that there is a problem with what they eat, and on the other hand, they are curious about why they can get millions from fighting; In fact, in this case, the "professional anti-counterfeiter" was purposefully profitable, which led to the law vetoing his request.

First, the fight itself is a very good behavior, but the development of fighting into a profit is a serious problem With the enhancement of consumer awareness of rights and interests, we will find that many people will actively complain after buying fake things and find their own justice.

For example, in the case of a "professional anti-counterfeiter" who was deceived in buying sea cucumbers, we initially thought that the man was the victim and applied for a complaint, but the result was not; When we go to understand this matter, we will find that in fact, the "professional anti-counterfeiter" in this matter has actually been for the purpose of profit from the beginning, and he did not put consumers in his heart at all.

Second, the "professional anti-counterfeiter" incident belongs to many reports of the same nature, resulting in the court vetoing millions of claims This special "professional anti-counterfeiter" after buying sea cucumbers, in fact, in a short period of time to sue a lot of complaints, distribution from no shelf life, sugar substandard, quality problems and other aspects to complain.

When the court sees its other "fight complaints", it will guess that in fact, this "professional anti-counterfeiter" has ulterior motives; You must know that general complaints are applied for at the same time, or reported multiple times in the same place, but this "professional anti-counterfeiter" chose multiple places to apply for different reasons, which implies that his purpose is actually to obtain more benefits, and the court can see his intention, so naturally it does not support compensation.

Although the act of cracking down on counterfeiting is very good, sometimes too much "counterfeiting" will make you lose money.

Because in the first instance, the court had already ascertained that the complainant had accumulated dozens of similar cases in recent years, and ruled that this person was a professional anti-counterfeiter, not a consumer of normal life, and the "Interim Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports on Market Supervision and Administration" implemented on January 1 had clearly determined that professional claims for profit would no longer be accepted, and the complainant just met this provision, so the court did not support the anti-counterfeiter's claim.

It was because the person applied for several complaints at the same time, and his behavior had involved disguised profits, and the court ruled that the claim was not supported.

In the case of a professional counterfeiter who claimed millions of dollars after buying sea cucumbers, the court did not support the claim because the person deliberately purchased it under the condition that he knew that there was no production date, and it had a certain purpose.

Because the professional anti-counterfeiter does not purchase goods for the purpose of life, the court does not support the claim of the professional anti-counterfeiter and can only refund the payment for the goods.

I don't think the court will support the claim because if such a precedent is set, there may be many people who will claim the claim in bad faith. Become a shortcut for people to make huge profits.

Because this person is a professional anti-counterfeiter, he saw that this sea cucumber was fake at that time. At that time, it was not pointed out, but it was claimed after buying, and the claim was very high.

After buying the sea cucumber, the seller, the distributor, and the exhibition company were sued to the court for not indicating the product standard number, the production date, etc.

Professional anti-counterfeiter "Liu bought more than 80 boxes of sea cucumbers with 10 tens of thousands of yuan at a time of an exhibition 5 years ago, and later sued the sellers, dealers and exhibition companies together with the sea cucumbers that did not indicate the production date and did not have a product standard number, and asked these companies to compensate themselves more than 1 million yuan with a claim of one to ten, and the court of first instance supported Liu's return, but did not support Liu's claim to pay ten for one, and later Liu was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Third Intermediate Court again. The court of second instance supported Liu's claim for compensation of 10 yuan because the production date and standard number were not indicated in the package of sea cucumbers, and ruled that the seller, the manufacturer and the exhibition company should compensate Liu more than one million yuan.

After the manufacturer appealed, it was found that Liu was originally a "professional anti-counterfeiter", and the manufacturer's statistics of the litigation cases initiated by Liu were mainly based on food safety compensation, so it was believed that Liu was a "professional anti-counterfeiter" mainly to make profits by exploiting loopholes, and the manufacturer submitted this document to the Beijing Supreme Court, and the Beijing Supreme Court finally ruled that Liu could not provide the purchase of sea cucumbers with quality problems that caused harm to the human body, did not support Liu's one-compensation and ten-dollar claims, supported the first-instance judgment, revoked the second-instance judgment, and supported Liu's return. It does not support the requirement that the payment for the goods will be paid for 10.

Professional anti-counterfeiters" are almost all nightmares for businesses, these people will take advantage of loopholes to threaten businesses to compensate, many businesses are therefore "professional anti-counterfeiters" to bankruptcy, these people are a team to operate, first to find goods that do not meet the national food safety, and then to threaten compensation, some suppliers were "professional anti-counterfeiters" more than 60 times of appeal, these people use these loopholes to occupy judicial resources, and now there are many places out of the governance plan, hoping to make these people stop.

This is the case of a professional anti-counterfeiter who sued the seller for compensation on the grounds that the seller did not clearly indicate the date of production after buying some sea cucumbers at an event.

The original cause of the case was that Liu bought more than 80 boxes of sea cucumbers at the exhibition, and later sued the dealer and the exhibition company together on the grounds that the sea cucumber did not indicate the production date and product standards, and was finally compensated more than one million yuan, but the court later ruled not to compensate.

In the case of "professional anti-counterfeiters" claiming millions of dollars after buying sea cucumbers, Liu bought 80 boxes of sea cucumbers at the event, and after buying them, the dealers and the exhibition company sued the goods without indicating the product standard number and the production date.

Five years ago, the "professional anti-counterfeiter" spent more than 100,000 yuan to buy more than 80 boxes of sea cucumbers at an exhibition and sales event, and finally sued the sellers, distributors, and exhibition companies together for not indicating the production date and the product standard number.

Nowadays, there are many fakes in the market, and there are many brands that will have fakes, because there are more and more counterfeits, so there are professional counterfeiters, and professional counterfeiters use the fakes in the market to make huge profits. With the increasing number of professional counterfeiters, merchants have also begun to act cautiously, and fakes have begun to disappear from the market. Basically, the probability of counterfeit goods that can be bought through regular channels is particularly small, so professional anti-counterfeiters have begun to take crooked ways.

It is quite correct that the court did not support the claim in the retrial. This incident is obviously a professional anti-counterfeiter who is nitpicking and picking a bone in the egg, and it is correct not to accept it. Next, let's talk about professional anti-counterfeiting.

First, the professional anti-counterfeiting for their own personal gain has indeed improved the market environment, the existence of professional anti-counterfeiters has indeed improved, the market environment makes the market less and less fakes, because they are afraid of being touched, resulting in the theft of chickens and rice. The cost of selling fakes is getting higher and higher, so there are fewer and fewer fakes. At this point, only the fight against counterfeiters can be said to make up for some loopholes in market supervision and is a positive existence.

Second, the professional anti-counterfeiter deliberately creates a claim The professional anti-counterfeiter is to seek personal interests, so the professional anti-counterfeiting is carried out, and when he does not meet the fake or buy the fake for a long time, he will cut off his income**. In this case, professional anti-counterfeiters will deliberately look for fakes, or even buy counterfeit products at low prices. This kind of behavior is not a crackdown, because everyone knows that it is a similar product that is purchased at a low price.

This is a waste of judicial resources.

Third, the professional anti-counterfeiter nitpicking, vexatious in the professional anti-counterfeiter, can not find the substantive problems of the purchased goods will begin, nitpicking, vexatious, looking for some reasons that are not reasons to blackmail the merchant, as long as the merchant has the confidence to resist, then the merchant will be treated fairly.

Professional anti-counterfeiters are originally under the banner of justice, to seek their own personal interests, and some of the reasons for cracking down on counterfeiting are only because of the loopholes of the merchants, rather than the quality of the goods. The court looked at Liu's past information and concluded that this person was doing this business, so it refused.

The amount involved is relatively large, and the court will naturally pay attention to it, after all, such things are very expensive, and they can't be pitted. The courts are very sensible, and everything is under their control.

The original provisions of the national law are not for this group of people, but for the majority of consumers, and this time the claim is not supported, I think it is very humane.

However, the Beijing Chaoyang Court later verified that Liu was a professional anti-counterfeiter, and China's law clearly stipulated that the claims of professional anti-counterfeiters would not be handled, so the court rejected Liu's claim at that time. The plaintiff Liu did not obey the judgment of the Beijing Chaoyang Court in the first instance, so he appealed to the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate Court, and the third-party company of the exhibition was ordered to compensate the plaintiff Liu 10,000 yuan in the second instance. However, the manufacturer of the sea cucumber product, Dalian Bangzidao Company, was dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court.

Because Dalian Bangzidao Company provided the court with evidence that Liu was a professional counterfeiter, and Liu could not prove that there was a quality problem with the sea cucumbers, the Beijing High People's Court upheld the first-instance judgment.

The result of the retrial of the case of claiming one million yuan after buying sea cucumbers was that this person's rights protection behavior was a professional anti-counterfeiting behavior, so his 10 times claim for compensation was not supported. The tenfold claim is unreasonable.