Spent more than 4,000 yuan to buy a "Chopin" watch, after arriving at the goods to learn that this "Chopin" is not Peter Chopin, can consumers who buy replica imitations claim compensation?
Recently, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court concluded the appeal case of the dispute over the information network sales contract, and the second instance found that the seller had constituted fraud, and upheld the judgment of the first instance to refund one and pay three.
Unintentionally buying a replica imitation "famous watch"
On February 20, 2021, Xiaojing took a fancy to a "Chopin Happy Diamond Series Ladies Mechanical Watch" with a price tag of 4,350 yuan in a shopping platform "Yi Only Watch" store, and the product details introduced, "Chopard Happy Diamonds series is very iconic among women's watches... The diamonds turning on the plate are chopin's biggest highlight of Happy Diamonds's design...".
XiaoJing carefully checked the watch photos and text introduction, and was very impressed. The product description also shows that the watch return package shipping, 7 days no reason to return, false one to ten. Seeing such a promise, Xiaojing was very relieved, and after communication with the seller, finally bought the watch for 4,200 yuan.
Six days later, Xiaojing received the courier. Koi happily opened the package and looked at it carefully, and found that the watch purchase voucher attached to the package was signed with a POS purchase order, which was marked "Swiss jewelry store" and the price was 68,000 yuan.
The difference is so much, this price is not quite right. Koi immediately communicated with the seller.
This brand has not heard, where?
Small well
Switzerland.
Customer
The watch is Chopin's genuine product is not a fake, fake I don't want...
Small well
Purchasing.
Customer
It's genuine, right?
Small well
Great fork.
Customer
What do you mean? Fake?
Small well
It can only be said that it is not a professional who cannot see it.
Customer
Then why didn't you tell me earlier!
Small well
Xiaojing requested a refund for the return, but the seller refused. Xiaojing applied again, and after the shopping platform intervened in the review, the full amount of the payment was refunded to Xiaojing.
Xiaojing believes that the shopping experience is very poor, not only was it deceived, the seller of the product page promised to fake one to lose ten, but the actual after-sales was bumpy, so he filed a lawsuit, requesting that the seller be ordered to return the goods and compensate ten times 42,000 yuan, and the shopping platform bears joint and several liability.
Does each other constitute fraud?
The court of first instance found that the "Chopard" brand was a Swiss high-end watch and jewelry brand, and the "HAPPY SPORT" series of watches in the brand was priced at 148,000 yuan through the official website. It was also found that when Koi sued, the watch involved in the case had been removed from the shelves.
During the trial, Xiaojing stated that the English name of the watch involved in the case was "Chopard", which was transliterated after being introduced to China, and the seller's commodity transaction snapshot was advertised with "Chopard", and the "Chopard Happy Diamonds" series was also displayed in the details of the watch involved, so the brand pointed to the "Chopard" brand.
The court of first instance held after trial
The seller has constituted fraud, and combined with the degree of fault and the evidence in the case, triple compensation shall be applied in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law. The shopping platform reviewed the store's entry qualifications in accordance with the law, disclosed the relevant information of the store to Xiaojing, and the goods involved in the case have also been removed from the shelves, and the duty of care has been completed. In addition, the shopping platform has also clearly informed Xiaojing of the legal relationship through the explicit request method of the user agreement.
Based on this, the court of first instance ordered Xiaojing to return the watch involved in the case to the seller, the seller to compensate Xiaojing 12,600 yuan, and rejected the rest of Xiaojing's litigation claims.
The seller was not satisfied and appealed to the Shanghai First Intermediate Court.
The "Chopin" watch I sell is not the internationally renowned brand "Chopard", and it is also "Chopin" that is stated on the sales promotion page, and there is no false filling of the truth. At the same time, Koi Should have a clear understanding of the market price of "Chopard" brand watches, and the price of 4,200 yuan is obviously not genuine and does not constitute misleading consumers.
Seller
court
The publicity is not worthy of the name and is not clearly informed that the imitation constitutes fraud
After trial, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the goods provided by the seller constituted fraud against consumers.
First of all, from the perspective of the operator's promotion of the product, the seller stated the words "Chopard Happy Diamonds series" in the product details introduction, supplemented by "... The diamond turning on the plate is the biggest highlight of Chopard Happy Diamonds' design..." and other feature descriptions.
"Happy Diamonds" is a series of products of the well-known brand watch "Chopard", and the product description in the seller's store page has the same content as the description of the series on the official website of the "Chopard" brand; In the product snapshot, the dial of the watch involved in the case was engraved with the English logo "Chopard" of "Chopard", and the purchase order and warranty card provided by the seller with the watch showed that the amount of the watch involved was 68,000 yuan, while the market price of the "Chopard" genuine watch generally ranged from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.
It can be seen that whether it is a product introduction, a snapshot of the product or the price displayed on the after-sales warranty card, it is intended to point to the "Chopard" brand, which is enough to mislead ordinary consumers.
Therefore, although the seller countered that the product name contained in its sales promotion homepage was "Chopin" and not "Chopard", "Chopin" could also be understood as a different transliteration of "Chopard", and the seller's promotion of the watch in question was not worthy of the name, constituting fraud against the consumer.
Secondly, from the perspective of consumers' general perception of goods, "Chopard" belongs to overseas imported luxury brands rather than daily consumer goods, and ordinary consumers may not know the market price of the brand.
Koi's claim that he did not know about the Chopard brand before his purchase and was only attracted by its appearance was reasonable.
The seller claimed that Koi knew the market price of the genuine "Chopin" and that the "Chopin" involved in the case was an imitation lacked factual basis.
Finally, from the perspective of the operator's obligation to remind consumers, if the goods sold by the business operators are imitations or high imitations, which is enough to mislead consumers, they should fulfill the obligation to truthfully remind and inform.
In the case of misleading publicity about the watch involved in the case on its store page, the seller did not add the content of the imitation reminder, nor did it fulfill the obligation to actively inform the consumer who placed the order, but only admitted that the watch involved in the case was a imitation when Koi inquired after receiving the goods.
Therefore, the seller did not fulfill the operator's obligation to truthfully inform, and its sales behavior was of a fraudulent nature.
Accordingly, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. (All used in the text are pseudonyms)
Transferred from | Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court
Source: Shanghai Rule of Law Daily