Prior to this, Alibaba submitted a petition to the Shanghai Fengxian Court in March 2017 to sue Yao Mo, a seller of fake cat food on the platform. In July, Alibaba won the case and the court decided that the defendant would pay 120,000 yuan. The case became the first case in the country. The publicly announced e-commerce platform appealed to the sale of counterfeit shops, which was dubbed by the media as 'Ali counterfeit first case'.
It is reported that the case was originally from June 2016. Taobao had discovered that the Swarovski watches sold by the two stores were suspected of selling through the big data cracking system. They purchased a 'Swarovski' female watch in the suspected sales shop. After identification by the brand, the goods packaged by the defendant was inconsistent with the genuine product. The workmanship was rough and the color was different. The right holder gave the appraisal conclusion that the goods involved were fake.
The two shops suspected of selling fake goods were respectively defendant Liu Mou and Wang Mouyi, both of whom were registered in the case. One of them was still an 'old shop' that had been operating for more than 10 years. He was suspected of violating the criminal law due to the high value of the alleged infringing goods. Taobao transferred the clues to the police. On August 10th, 2016, Taobao, together with the right holder and the Huangbei police station in Luohu District Public Security Bureau in Shenzhen, investigated Wang’s business and living space in Phuket. After the arrest, Liu admitted that Wang Mouyi’s shop was also actually managed by the police. The police seized on the spot 125 counterfeit Swarovski watches, counterfeit Swarovski official seals, counterfeit Swarovski watch straps, and packaging box accessories. , worth nearly 2 million yuan.
Subsequently, Alibaba submitted a petition to Shenzhen Longgang Court on December 30, 2016. The application was officially filed on January 9, 2017.
During the trial, the plaintiff's attorney requested the court to order the three defendants to compensate the plaintiff for losses of 480,000 yuan, 920,000 yuan and 1.57 million yuan. The tribunals who had received the court summons did not appear in court and the court declared the trial in absentia.
According to the petitions submitted by Liu and Chen, the two admitted that because of the big mistake made by the moment's confusion, they had a certain impact on Taobao. They had hoped to gain understanding from the plaintiff because of factors such as family history.
After more than an hour of trial, the court announced adjournment and sent a verdict.