Recently, a case of a small store being sued for selling counterfeit Comfort products has attracted the attention of the public. However, when the outcome of the case surfaced, it made people feel the warmth behind the law. It turns out that the law is not ruthless, it upholds fairness and justice, and also protects the interests of the disadvantaged groups in society.
In this case, the shop was sued for selling goods that infringed the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. However, the law does not generalize, but makes a fair ruling based on the actual situation. In the end, the store was exempted from liability because it was able to prove that the product was lawfully obtained and stated the supplier. This judgment not only reflects the rigor and fairness of the law, but also demonstrates the humanistic care of the law for self-employed people.
It is reported that in the rural area of Yixing, where the incident occurred, Procter & Gamble found that the soaps sold by the non-staple food store used the trademark "Shufujia", and after Procter & Gamble's identification, these soaps were not genuine. Procter & Gamble immediately filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the grocery store stop the infringement and compensate a total of 20,000 yuan for economic losses.
During the court trial, the grocery store stated to the court that the soaps they sold were purchased from regular e-commerce platforms at a market price of 3.5 yuan per piece, and that they had legal purchase channels. In order to prove their innocence, they even submitted transaction vouchers and business information materials of suppliers.
The judge who heard the case held that the non-staple food store, as a small and micro business entity, was located in a relatively remote rural area, and due to its professional knowledge and ability to identify, it could not be required to verify the authenticity of every piece of soap it purchased.
In addition, they purchase goods from formal online trading platforms, which is in line with general trading habits. Based on the evidence provided by them, it can be concluded that they have fulfilled the necessary examination obligations at the time of purchase and purchased the goods at the normal market price, and therefore, it can be concluded that the non-staple food store was unaware of the products that infringed the exclusive right to use the registered trademark.
In the end, the court found that the defense of the legal source of the infringing goods sold by the small store was established, and it was not liable for compensating for economic losses, but it should still bear the expenses incurred by the right holder to stop the infringement and compensate Procter & Gamble for 500 yuan of reasonable expenses.
This incident not only triggered people's deep thinking on the issue of trademark infringement in the rural market, but also made people see the helplessness and struggle of small and micro operators in the market economy. How to protect intellectual property rights while also taking into account the survival rights and interests of small and micro operators needs to be discussed and solved together.
Some netizens believe that ordinary merchants purchase goods formally (subjectively and unintentionally), and it is difficult for ordinary people to distinguish between true and fake (objective conditions), so ordinary merchants should not be held responsible, and those who deliberately sell counterfeits should be held responsible.
Some people also said that if it was identified as a fake, the store was indeed unaware and cooperated with the supplier information. It only makes sense that P&G should reward the store and sue the supplier and the platform at the same time.
This case shows that the law is not a static dogma, but a tool that can be applied flexibly according to specific circumstances. It has both a serious side and a warm side. In this uncertain world, laws are needed to maintain order and fairness, but also to take care of those who inadvertently make mistakes. The law is not only a tool to maintain social order, but also a guardian of individual rights and interests.