Does The Electricity Supplier Have Any Monitoring Obligations For Sellers To Use Their Platform For Sale?

With the explosive development of online shopping, there are many fake commodities on the sales platform of electronic commerce, which is criticized by all circles. This not only infringes the interests of trademark owners and other groups, but also violates the rights and interests of consumers. More importantly, it has cast a shadow on China's network trading integrity system.

Trademark owners, consumers and media have been bidding for electricity providers.

The electricity supplier also expressed wrongdoing, saying that the seller had no direct relationship with the platform itself.

From the legal level to review, the electricity supplier on the seller's use of its platform selling behavior in the end whether there is monitoring obligations?

China's online shopping legislation is obviously lagging behind.

So far, there are no specific laws and regulations regulating electronic pactions at the national level.

The obligation to monitor and monitor the electricity supplier is not expressly stipulated in the law. It can only be scattered in departmental rules and regulatory documents. The more representative case is the Interim Regulations on the management of Internet commodity pactions and related services promulgated by the SAIC in 2010.

The provisions of the measures are relatively perfect for online shopping, and the obligations and supervision and management of service providers have been stipulated. The third chapter specifically stipulates the obligations of operators providing network paction platform services.

Among them, the twenty-third provision provides that operators who provide network trading platform services shall establish inspection and monitoring systems for operators or services that provide goods or services through the network trading platform, and find violations of laws, regulations and rules governing industrial and commercial administration. They shall report to the local administrative departments for Industry and commerce, take timely measures to stop them, and, if necessary, stop providing network paction platform services to them.

The administrative department for Industry and Commerce discovers that there are violations of laws, regulations and rules in the network trading platform, and that operators who provide network paction platform services are required to take measures to stop them. Operators who provide network paction platform services should cooperate with them.

The twenty-fourth provision provides that operators who provide network trading platform services shall take necessary measures to protect the rights of exclusive use of registered trademarks and the right of enterprise names, etc., and shall have the necessary evidence to prove that the operators in the online trading platform have the right to infringe upon their registered trademark rights, such as the right to exclusive use of their registered trademarks or the right to name their enterprises or to infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests.

According to the provisions of the two articles, the electricity supplier should establish the necessary.

Monitoring system.

However, these two articles are more like the obligation declarative clauses, because there are no clearer and operable clauses to clarify the specific obligations of the electricity suppliers, and more importantly, there is no corresponding legal responsibility for these two articles.

It seems that the electricity supplier's supervision duty on selling holiday is more like an armchair strategist.

Other countries are right.

What is the duty of monitoring?

European and American courts for electricity providers

The attitude is quite different.

In the case of French Hermes v. eBay, the ruling pointed out that eBay is the maker of trading rules, providing corresponding pages for businesses to display goods, and should be regarded as the intermediary of network pactions.

Therefore, eBay fails to fulfill its obligation to monitor and should be liable for the sale of counterfeit goods on its website.

In the German Rolex v. eBay case, the judgment pointed out that eBay is not only a network service provider, but also a trading broker, so it has the responsibility to supervise the counterfeit goods.

In the case of Tiffany v. eBay and Lancome v. eBay, the court held that the obligation of infringement supervision under the electricity supplier environment belongs to the trademark owner.

As a market entity, the electricity supplier is not a regulatory authority. If it puts too many obligations and responsibilities on it, it may hamper its development.

However, as a platform for aggregated sellers, if they are only responsible for making profits, the electricity supplier will not undertake certain legal obligations, nor do they comply with the legal principles of equivalence of rights and obligations. In the long run, it is also not conducive to the development of electronic business.

Therefore, it is urgent to promote legislation, clarify the legal obligations of electric providers, and clarify the boundaries of their actions.