Professional Counterfeiting People Lose Their Rights In Shenyang And Ultimately Bear Their Own Losses.

After shopping: litigation, rights protection, compensation.

By the end of 2013, Chen Xuesong, a professional counterfeit man, was going to Guangzhou Boradi.

Ltd. and a large shopping mall in Shenyang sued the people's Court of Shenhe District, asking for a refund of 33360 yuan for shopping, and a compensation of 33360 yuan for shopping.

Chen Xuesong said he bought 6 oscardan casual suits and 6 oscardan scarves in a shopping mall in Shenyang in September 1, 2012.

Suspicion of scarf,

Having quality problems, he entrusted his friend Ji Wanchang to the product quality supervision and Inspection Institute of Ji'nan, Shandong for testing. The results showed that they were all substandard products.

Western-style clothes and scarves are all produced by Guangzhou business limited.

In this regard, the Guangzhou bold trade limited said that its own suits and scarves did not have any quality problems. The test report submitted by Chen Xue Song was not true, and it could not prove that the products they were sending were their own products, and they could not prove the quality problems of their products.

Shopping malls say: rights defenders are professionals.

Guangzhou, Chen Xuesong, and Ji Wanchang are not ordinary consumers. According to past public information, they are professional anti-counterfeiting people. They are organized, premeditated, and have a clear division of labor. They specializes in buying goods in the name of consumer rights protection.

The shopping mall in Shenyang claims that according to network information, Chen Xuesong and Ji Wanchang often make similar requests to the national production and operation enterprises, especially clothing manufacturers, and ask for large sums of money. As a profession, they set up a studio to engage in the so-called claims large sums of money in the name of counterfeiting.

The consumer rights protection act protects consumers' legitimate rights and interests. Chen Xuesong's behavior of buying suits and scarves is not consumer behavior.

Their demands are not legitimate rights and interests.

After buying his suit and scarf, Chen Xuesong called the manufacturer for a claim of more than 20 yuan.

After the claim failed, Chen Xuesong went to Harbin to buy 10 sets of the same brand suit.

In addition, Oscar Dan

When the product enters the field, the manufacturer has submitted relevant test reports to the shopping mall, and the shopping center has fulfilled its obligation to review.

At present, it is impossible to prove that Chen Xuesong inspection products are bought in this shopping mall, so it is not possible to confirm that the products provided in the product inspection report are sold by the store.

Even in shopping malls, even if the product really has product quality problems, responsibility should not be borne by the mall.

After testing: the so-called "fake" is actually qualified.

In the process of hearing the case in Shenhe District People's court, because Chen saw the manufacturers and shopping malls not approve of the test results, Chen asked him to re identify his suits and scarves.

The National Textiles quality supervision and inspection center selected by Chen Xuesong entrusted the court to test whether the suits and scarves are qualified.

In March 10, 2014, the national textile products quality supervision and Inspection Center issued a test report on 5 samples of scarves and 6 Western-style clothes provided by Chen Xuesong. The results showed that the measured values of fiber content of scarves and suits were consistent with the content labels.

The court held that Chen Xuesong claimed that the oscardan scarf and suit he bought were all substandard products, but commissioned by the court, the results showed that they were qualified products.

The parties shall be responsible for providing evidence for their own claims and claims, and shall bear adverse consequences if the evidence is not enough or the evidence is not sufficient.

The court dismissed Chen Xuesong's claim in accordance with the law. The cost of the case was 1470 yuan and the appraisal fee was 4694 yuan, which was borne by Chen Xuesong.

The judge said: knowing fake buying behavior is protected.

The trial judge said that in practice, most consumer rights protection cases were implemented by professional counterfeiting people.

In the past, professional counterfeiting people had been wandering in the gray area of law and suspected of extortion.

Now, the new consumer protection law, which was introduced in March 15th this year, and the relevant judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's court, have explicitly affirming the law of the protection of knowledge of fake buying behavior.

In January 2014, the Supreme People's Court issued the third provision of the Supreme People's Court on several issues applicable to the trial of food and drug disputes. The provisions of the article stipulate that because of disputes over the quality of food and drugs, buyers advocate rights to producers and sellers, and producers and sellers defer to buyers who know perfectly well that the quality of food and drugs is still in question, and the people's court will not support them.

This provision came into effect in March 15th this year, although the provision is confined to the field of food and medicine, this provision is undoubtedly a recognition of the behavior of professional crackdown from the judicial level of the court.

At the same time, the new "consumer protection law" has increased the amount of punitive damages, from "one back to one" to "one back and three loss", and set a minimum compensation amount of 500 yuan.

This will increase the profit margin of professional counterfeiting people, which may stimulate a new round of "counterfeiting craze" among professional counterfeiting people.

Professional counterfeiting people objectively help regulate the order of market operation, which is consistent with the original intention of the legislation on consumer rights and interests protection.

Although it is profitable for professional fake people to "know how to buy fake", the acquisition of such benefits is not a violation of the law and is a legitimate interest.