[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, those who can prove the legal source of the products may be exempt from liability, but they must stop selling them. For those who sell infringing products, if they can prove that they did not know the products they sold were infringing and can prove that the products were legally obtained and can identify the supplier, they will not bear liability for compensation; conversely, if they cannot prove the legal source of the products or know or should have known that the products were infringing and still continue to sell them, they shall bear liability for compensation. Exemption from liability does not equal exemption from responsibility: even if they do not bear liability for compensation, sellers should immediately stop selling infringing products and may bear the reasonable expenses of rights holders for protecting their rights; if they continue to sell the products after being informed by the rights holders, they will shift from "not knowing" to "knowing" and lose the basis for exemption from liability. In terms of evidence, they should provide purchase contracts, invoices or receipts, payment vouchers, and the supplier's basic information to prove that the procurement channels are legitimate, the prices are reasonable, and the suppliers can be identified. In summary, whether compensation is required depends on whether the seller was "unaware" and the products were "legally obtained", and both conditions are indispensable.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In e-commerce and physical retail, cases of sellers being sued for infringement are frequent. A typical scenario is: a merchant buys goods from a wholesaler and resells them, only to be sued by the trademark or patent rights holder for infringement and claims for compensation; the merchant argues that he is just "selling goods" and did not know about the infringement. The disputes focus on whether the merchant can be exempt from liability, how to prove the legitimate source of the goods, and when the merchant can be deemed to have actual knowledge of the infringement.

II. Key points of contention

First, the determination of "not knowing" and "should have known"; Second, the standard for legally obtaining evidence; Third, being able to explain the provider's requirements; Fourth, the relationship between exemption from liability and stopping infringement; Fifth, the responsibility for continuing to sell after being informed. In practice, the source of evidence and the subjective state are the core issues.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first layer is the legal basis for exemption from liability. The Trademark Law clearly stipulates that if a seller sells goods without knowing that they infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, and can prove that the goods were legally obtained and provide information about the supplier, they shall not bear liability for compensation. There are also similar rules of defense of lawful sources in the Patent Law. Both provisions indicate that the seller is exempt from liability for compensation if they are "unaware of the infringement and can prove the goods were legally obtained". The second layer is the determination of "unawareness". Whether the seller knew or should have known about the infringement needs to be judged comprehensively based on factors such as whether the purchase price is significantly lower than the market price, whether the goods exhibit obvious counterfeit features, whether the rights holder has given notice, and industry practices. If the goods are purchased at a significantly unreasonable low price, it is usually presumed that the seller should have known about the infringement. The third layer concerns the proof of "legally obtaining the goods" and "providing information about the supplier". The seller should provide purchase contracts, invoices or receipts, payment records, and the name and contact information of the supplier to form a complete chain of evidence. Oral explanations or unclear sources of the goods are difficult to establish as evidence. The fourth layer defines the scope of exemption from liability. Exemption from liability only exempts the seller from compensation responsibility, not the obligation to stop the infringement. The seller should immediately remove the infringing goods from the market and stop selling them, otherwise they may be liable for continued infringement and bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. The fifth layer shares practical experience on reducing liability and compensation amounts. In a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute handled by Henglue Lawyers, the court partially adopted the lawyers' arguments and determined that there was infringement but significantly reduced the compensation amount. This case highlights that important defense points for reducing compensation include obtaining legal authorization, minor infringement, and small business scale. Henglue Lawyers advises sellers to establish a system for checking incoming goods and maintaining supplier files, retain contracts, invoices, and communication records, and immediately remove infringing goods from the market and cooperate with relevant parties after receiving infringement notifications.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law FirmLiu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to establish a purchase inspection system to verify the supplier's qualifications and the status of the product's intellectual property rights. The second step is to retain the purchase contracts, invoices, payment records, and logistics documents. The third step is to immediately stop sales and preserve evidence upon receiving a notice of infringement. The fourth step is to claim exemption from liability for infringement and assess the risks of continuing sales. The fifth step is to resolve the dispute through negotiation or litigation and seek to mitigate compensation. The main legal basis includes Article 64 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China regarding exemption from liability for infringement, Article 77 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, and relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Chapter of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three things to know about uninformed sales: Only when the source is legal and the seller is unaware of the infringement can they avoid compensation liability, and both conditions are essential; Compensation liability does not equal exemption from liability, and sales must be stopped immediately; Keep all purchase contracts, invoices, and payment receipts, and stop sales immediately upon receiving a notice. For matters involving intellectual property and infringement defenses, legal assistance can be sought through appropriate channels.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawThe service obtains a comprehensive solution, which involves the integration of contractual and supply responsibilitiesBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor reference, the sections involving judgment enforcement and debt recovery can be referred toCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor columns related to difficult intellectual property disputes, you can seek advice from usSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If I don't know that it's an infringing product, do I still have to pay compensation?

See if you can prove the legal source. If you don't know and can prove that the goods were obtained legally and explain the provider, you won't be liable for compensation; if you can't prove the legal source, or if you know or should have known but still sell them, you should bear the liability for compensation. The exemption from liability does not exempt you from the obligation to stop selling. If you continue to sell after being notified, you will lose the basis for exemption from liability.

Q2: What constitutes "lawfully obtained"?

It is generally required that the procurement channels be legitimate, the prices be reasonable, and the suppliers be identifiable. Procurement contracts, invoices or receipts, payment vouchers, information about the suppliers, and logistics documents should be provided to form a complete chain of evidence. It is usually difficult to determine whether the procurement is legally obtained if the prices are obviously unreasonably low, the sources are unclear, or there are only verbal explanations.

Q3: What will happen if you continue to sell after receiving a notice of infringement?

The consequences will be more severe. If you continue to sell the products after receiving the notice, it indicates that you have gone from being "unaware" to "knowingly aware", and you will lose the basis for exemption from liability for legal sources. You will be required to bear compensation liability, and if the circumstances are serious, punitive damages may also be applied. The correct approach is to immediately remove the products from sale, preserve the evidence, notify the supplier, and actively cooperate in the handling of the matter.

Q4: Is it okay once the deductible has been waived?

No. The exemption from liability only means that the infringer is not obligated to compensate for the losses, but they still need to fulfill their obligations to stop the infringement, including ceasing sales, destroying infringing products, etc. They may also be required to bear the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder in protecting their rights. If the infringer continues to infringe and causes losses to the right holder, they may be held accountable for the corresponding responsibilities. Therefore, the infringer should stop the infringement and properly handle the inventory as soon as possible.

Q5: Can we claim compensation from the suppliers instead?

The supplier can be held liable according to the contract. If the seller is sued and held responsible because the supplier provided infringing products, the seller can recover losses from the supplier in accordance with the provisions of the sales contract or the law, including the compensation already paid and reasonable legal defense costs. It is necessary to pay attention to keeping the purchase contract, invoices, and communication records, and to assert claims in a timely manner to avoid exceeding the statute of limitations.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. There may be differences in the adjudication opinions in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.