[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the response to infringement complaints received by e-commerce platforms can be divided into four steps. The first step is to secure evidence: save the full text of the complaint notice, screenshots of the product page, links, records of the listing time, and sales data to avoid losing evidence after the link is removed. The second step is to analyze the type and basis of the complaint: distinguish between trademark infringement, copyright infringement, design patent infringement, and unfair competition, as the defense strategies for different types vary greatly. The third step is to submit a defense response: submit a written defense within the time limit set by the platform, and provide a chain of authorizations, qualification certificates, and materials explaining non-infringement. If necessary, apply for a hearing or coordination organized by the platform. The fourth step is to reserve the right to seek further remedies: if the platform has removed the listing and deducted points, assess whether to file a lawsuit within the statutory time limit. The Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2019), the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020), and Article 149 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provide the basis for defense. For reference, please see the following link:Intellectual property protection and corporate lawThe service description in the column.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Most of those seeking advice on this issue are e-commerce sellers and brand owners who have been complained against. There are three common scenarios: being complained against for using logos similar to others'; being complained against for product images or details page descriptions infringing others' copyrights; and being complained against for product packaging being deemed counterfeit. In practice, the most common mistake is to hastily remove the product from the market to avoid further trouble: once you voluntarily remove the product, it is equivalent to admitting infringement, and you will be at a disadvantage in subsequent litigation or platform appeals. Another common problem is not understanding the platform's appeal deadline, missing the opportunity to resume sales. Therefore, the first principle of response is to first secure evidence, then evaluate the scope of defense, and finally decide whether to remove the product from the market.

II. Key points of contention

The first focus is the legality of the complaint, including the qualification of the complainant and the basis of their rights. The second focus is the determination of the similarity between the product labels of the defendant and the labels claimed by the complainant. The third focus is the integrity of the authorization chain. The fourth focus is whether the packaging and decoration constitute confusion or substantial similarity. The fifth focus is the basis and rationality of the amount of damages. The sixth focus is the relationship between the platform's processing rules and legal rules. The seventh focus is the remedies for the results of the platform's intervention. The eighth focus is whether there is an independent claim space for unfair competition. The way of organizing defense arguments can be referred toSpecial services and other casesThe description of the column.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Take a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute handled by attorney Liu Yuanyuan of our firm as an example: The plaintiff is a well-known paper industry enterprise, and its trademark enjoys high popularity in the sanitary napkin category and has been recognized as a well-known trademark. The defendant, authorized by a third party, used another logo and design patent to produce and sell similar products and sold them through e-commerce platforms. The plaintiff claimed trademark infringement and argued that the packaging and decoration constituted confusion, seeking compensation of nearly one million yuan. The defendant's lawyer's defense strategy consisted of three points: First, he claimed that the logo used had legal authorization and did not constitute malicious imitation; Second, he claimed that the logo itself was not similar and did not constitute trademark infringement; Third, he claimed that the packaging and decoration did not constitute confusion, so the claim of unfair competition should not be supported; At the same time, he raised a defense against the amount of compensation, pointing out that the high claim lacked basis. The court partially adopted the attorney's opinion, finding that trademark infringement existed but rejecting the claim of unfair competition, and significantly reduced the amount of compensation. The lesson of this case is that the defense should be carried out in layers, not mixing all reasons together, but demonstrating them respectively for infringement determination, unfair competition, and compensation amount. At the same time, the verification of the authorization chain must be carried out in advance. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: 1. Immediately save the complaint notice, product page, and sales data to secure evidence; 2. Verify the rights basis and authorization documents of the complaint subject; 3. Clarify the authorization chain and source proof of your own logos; 4. Assess the similarity between your logos and the opponent's rights logos; 5. Verify the independence and differences of packaging and decorations; 6. Submit a written defense within the time limit and apply for a platform-organized hearing; 7. Evaluate the reasonableness of compensation claims and subsequent litigation pathways. Legal basis: - Article 57 and Article 63 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended and implemented on April 23, 2019); - Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended and implemented on April 23, 2019); - Article 149 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China; - The relationship between platform rules and legal regulations shall be governed by the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

First, fix the evidence before handling the case, as it's difficult to collect evidence after the link is removed. Second, don't rush to remove the content voluntarily to avoid admitting infringement. Third, the authorization chain is the core defense point, so it's necessary to collect all the authorization documents. Fourth, trademark infringement and unfair competition are two separate claims, which may lead to different outcomes and should be dealt with separately. Fifth, the amount of compensation is usually much higher than the actual profits, so it needs to be justified item by item. Sixth, pay attention to the appeal period and process of the platform. Seventh, the platform's handling result does not affect the preservation of the right to seek judicial remedies in the future. Eighth, the defense materials should correspond to the complaint items item by item, and avoid general responses. Ninth, if it involves multiple platforms, it should be handled according to the rules and deadlines of each platform, and attention should be paid to integrating the materials to ensure consistency in approach.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What should I do first when I receive an infringement complaint from the platform?

The first step is to secure evidence: save the full text of the complaint notice, screenshots and links of the product page, records of the listing time, sales data, and relevant authorization documents. If the link is removed, it will be difficult to obtain the evidence. At the same time, you should record the basis of the complaint stated in the notice, the measures required to be taken, and the appeal period. These directly determine the time limit and direction of the subsequent response. You can refer to the relevant ideas for protecting your rights for more information.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawColumn.

Q2: Is it okay to directly remove the product from the shelves?

It is not recommended. If you proactively remove the content from the platform before evaluating the scope of the defense, it may be easily perceived as an admission of infringement, which could put you at a disadvantage in subsequent appeals and litigation. If you believe the complaint is clearly unfounded, you should first file an appeal and a defense; if it is necessary to remove the content to avoid further losses, you should simultaneously preserve all evidence and explain the situation in the appeal. If necessary, you can apply for the restoration of the link. The approach can be referred to as follows:Special services and other casesColumn.

Q3: If the other party has authorization, does that necessarily mean there's no infringement of intellectual property rights?

Not necessarily. Authorization can prove the right to use, but it does not necessarily exclude infringement. If the authorized logo itself is similar to others' registered trademarks, and the trademark has a high reputation in the same or similar products, the right holder may still claim infringement. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the scope of authorization, the similarity of product categories and logos at the same time, and cannot simply rely on the authorization documents to defend against infringement. The method of judging similarity can be referred toIntellectual property protection and corporate lawColumn.

Q4: What should I do if the other party says the compensation amount is too high?

It needs to be demonstrated item by item. In practice, compensation is usually based on actual losses or illegal gains. If it cannot be proven, it can be referred to the multiple of the license fee. At the same time, there is room for the application of statutory compensation. If the amount claimed by the other party is obviously lacking in basis, the defendant can raise defenses from aspects such as limited sales data, profit levels, and the duration and scope of infringement, and provide their own sales and profit materials in the defense. The specific argumentation approach can be referred to for reference.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn.

Q5: The platform ruled that I lost the case. Can I still sue them again?

Yes. The platform handles the case based on its own rules, and the handling conclusion is not final. You can still file a civil lawsuit with the people's court, claiming that the infringement does not exist or demanding correction of the compensation amount. At the same time, you should check whether you meet the statute of limitations for litigation and refute the platform's findings item by item in the lawsuit. In practice, it's not uncommon for there to be differences between the compensation amount determined by the platform and the final determination of the court.

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

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the necessary evidence to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·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.