Is it also infringement to sell brand glasses on the second -hand trading platform?The court judged like this →

Ms. Chen (pseudonym) sells a well -known glasses product on the second -hand trading platform. After discovery, a company in Xiamen believes that this will make consumers misunderstand that it is an authorized shop, constituting improper competition and claiming 30,000 yuan. However, Ms. Chen thought that she had no infringement, but she just sold second -hand idle items. Recently, the Siming Court tried to infringe the right to trademarks and unfair competition disputes.

Ms. Chen is from Zhejiang. She publishes goods on the second -hand trading platform, and then finds a service for sending goods from the small program to earn the intermediate difference. This time, she placed an order of a well -known brand glasses on the applet and sold it simultaneously on the second -hand trading platform. I did not expect to be sued by the company of the brand's glasses. The company claims that Ms. Chen's behavior misleads consumers, leading to consumers who believe that the online store is an authorized store of the company, constitutes unfair competition, and also infringe on the company's registered trademark exclusive rights. The company's entrusted agent Li Mou said that he bought a pair of glasses at a price of 50 yuan in Ms. Chen's online store, and found that there was no genuine anti -counterfeiting identification code on the lens's legs. Li made notarization for this.

Ms. Chen said that she bought the glasses product through a legal channel for second -hand sales platform. This is a free disposal of her legal items and should be protected by law.

After hearing, the court held that Ms. Chen sold glasses products with the same types of brands on the second -hand trading platform and highlighted the use of brand logos. However, there is no authentic anti -counterfeit code on the glasses, which is a counterfeit registered trademark. Ms. Chen sells multi -sample glasses on the second -hand trading platform. It can be seen that she is not transferred to idle items, but is sold for profit. She is an online store operator. His attention obligation should be higher than ordinary consumers. Ms. Chen still sold the products involved in the case when the price of the product was significantly lower than the genuine product, and it was obvious that she did not fulfill her reasonable attention obligations. Special rights for registered trademarks.

(Xiamen Daily reporter Tan Xinyi Correspondent Si Fa Xuan)

- END -