"Selling a house and selling a car will not withdraw the lawsuit, the money awarded can be donated, and you can't rely on selling misery sympathy to evade your legal responsibility." This is the voice of the counterfeiter who buys cooked meat.
Recently, the woman's online sale of 150 bowls of cooked meat was reported by the dummy as "three no products", the court ruled that it was refunded 50,000 yuan of the incident, triggering a hot discussion on the Internet, the heat of the incident can be said to be in tandem with Liu Qihong, with the fermentation of the incident, more details emerged...
The woman said that the counterfeiter is a deliberate extortion, she is just a farmer, do not know what to mark the product related information, we have handled various documents, how to be identified as "three no products", but the counterfeiter accused it is not an ordinary farmer, behind the registered capital of 1 million food companies, and the development of more than 200 downline micro-businessmen. Although the corresponding qualifications are available, the product information should also be noted in accordance with the regulations during the production process. The woman said she would continue to appeal. As for the counterfeiter, it was revealed that he provided a false home address to the court, which caused trouble to the owner of the house, who said that the incident continued to ferment and would consider suing Shao Mou (the counterfeiter).
The direction of this matter can be described as a twist and turn, for which netizens are busy, and the saliva lawsuit has not stopped. Female netizens who support buying cooked meat said that cracking down on fakes is extortion. Netizens who support the fight against counterfeiters said that food without labeling relevant information is a three-no product. Some netizens said that the two people are cooperative and cooperative marketing. It is undeniable that Mao's mother's local specialties are indeed on fire.
From a legal point of view, the cooked meat sold by the woman was not marked with relevant information about the product, and the court's decision was justified. This also rings a wake-up call for many friends who do catering takeaway and local souvenir online sales, and food safety is not allowed to be a child's play.
From a moral point of view, the woman said that the counterfeiter Shao first bought 3 copies, and then bought 150 copies, which is deliberately staring at himself, and Shao (the counterfeiter) had a similar case before this. Shao Mou, a counterfeiter, does not deny that he is a professional counterfeiter, and also said that what he does is within the scope of the law. A counterfeiter uses counterfeiting as a means and uses money as the purpose, and the woman is indeed a bit wronged.
As a workshop that produces food, it is still necessary to comply with the law and do a good job in relevant regulations, which is not only responsible for consumers, but also for their own protection. As for the counterfeiters who are now "smart but mistaken by smart", providing false home addresses to the court, is this a lack of heart? So is it about morality or about the law?
Dear netizens, what do you think about this matter? Feel free to leave a comment below.