Abstract: for example, in 2004, Tiffany filed a lawsuit against eBay. Tiffany believes that most of the products on the eBay website claiming to be "Tiffany" products are basically fake diamonds. However, the United States, New York, the Federal District Court judge Sullivan said in his judgment, eBay should not be responsible for trademark infringement of these products.
in February 2nd, in the United States listed Alibaba shares after two consecutive days after the crash, finally turned. Just two days of decline, so that the market value of Alibaba evaporated $31 billion.
January 30th, Ma to Beijing with Alibaba SAIC leadership, strained relations between the two was the "rattling" finally eased, SAIC said the "white paper" has no legal effect, Ma said it will cooperate with regulatory crackdown".
however, the eastern hemisphere "fake" triggered "slobber war" in the Western Hemisphere, the formation of the "Butterfly Effect" does not seem to end soon.
because the other side of the earth, some firms initiate collective action of the Alibaba listed may exist in the information disclosure.
back SAIC and Alibaba or Taobao’s "conflict", or cause in the "online shopping fake", then "fake" in foreign countries, businesses will face what legal consequences? Business platform settled merchants "fake", the platform will take what kind of legal responsibility?
first of all, it needs to be clear that the counterfeit goods issue involves both intellectual property issues, but also related to product quality issues. From the perspective of intellectual property rights, "counterfeiting" usually refers to the rights and interests of those who are not authorized by the copyright owner, the trademark right holder or the patent right holder, and the related products are produced and sold. From the perspective of product quality, because the fake goods are unauthorized production, it is easy to produce quality problems.
because of the different legal systems of different countries, the ways and means of dealing with "counterfeit commodities" in different countries are not the same.
America: selling businesses or platforms involving felonies "shunned"
in the United States, for the control and prevention of counterfeit goods, mainly rely on the rights of people and social appeal rights, counterfeiting mechanism competition supervision, consumer rights organization and three party mechanism etc..
because the United States is case law countries, in the lawsuit to the court, for the penalty and the determination of the business platform "fake", the history of traditional business areas "fake" judgment will become an important reference for the trial court. However, the specific case in the end will be how to, depends entirely on the presiding judge.
for example, in 2004, Tiffany v. eBay case. Tiffany believes that most of the sales on the eBay website claiming to be "Tiffany" diamond products basically are fake, these products violated Tiffany’s trademark rights, harm.