[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, if an e-commerce platform knows or should have known that an operator on the platform is infringing upon rights and fails to take necessary measures promptly after receiving a valid notice from the rights holder, it shall bear joint and several liability with the infringer in accordance with the law. According to Articles 57 and 63 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) and Articles 42 and 45 of the E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2019), the platform should take measures such as deletion, blocking, and disconnecting links promptly upon receiving the notice; if it knows or should have known about the infringement but fails to take action, it shall bear joint and several liability with the infringer for the expanded damages. It is recommended that rights holders standardize the issuance of notices and keep relevant records. For more details, please refer to the following link:Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

E-commerce platforms are frequently involved in selling counterfeit goods and infringing on trademarks, and the platform's responsibility has become the focus of rights protection. Typical scenarios include: when rights holders complain about shops selling counterfeit goods on the platform, the platform evades responsibility by claiming neutrality and handles the complaints with delay; the platform fails to delete obvious infringing links for a long time; and when rights holders sue, the platform is listed as a co-defendant. Many rights holders do not know that the platform should be held accountable if it knows about the infringement or receives a notice but fails to take action. For online transaction contracts, the provisions of the E-commerce Law can be referenced.Business and contract dispute resolution services for enterprises.

II. Key points of dispute

There are three key points. Firstly, the effectiveness of the notice: whether the notice from the rights holder includes ownership and preliminary evidence of infringement, and whether formal defects are often used by platforms as a reason for exemption from liability. Secondly, knowing or should-have-known: whether the platform is aware of repeated and obvious infringements, and whether algorithmic recommendations have exacerbated the situation. Thirdly, the scope of responsibility: the platform's joint and several liability for the expanded portion caused by its failure to take necessary measures. When handling similar cases in the Beijing area, the court has a clearer judgment on the determination of unprocessed valid notices within a reasonable timeframe, and platforms often use the defense of having forwarded the notice. For cases involving compensation enforcement, reference can be made to relevant precedents.Special services and other case services.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Law Firm

Take the trademark infringement and unfair competition case handled by Attorney Liu Yuanyuan as an example: Company B was authorized to use the EFGK trademark in September 2023 and sold the products through Company C's e-commerce platform. In April 2024, Company A sued Company C for infringing on its well-known EFGH trademark, seeking compensation of 980,000 yuan and demanding that Company C stop selling the products. Attorney Liu Yuanyuan argued that the logo was legally authorized, not similar to the original trademark, and the packaging and decoration did not constitute unfair competition. The court found Company B guilty of trademark infringement but dismissed the unfair competition claim, awarding Company B compensation of 60,000 yuan and dismissing the claim against Company C, as there was no sufficient evidence showing that Company C knew about the infringement or failed to take action after receiving valid notifications. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. Note of the case: The platform's liability is based on the premise that it either knew or should have known about the infringement, or failed to take action after being notified. The rights holder must send a standardized notice and collect evidence of the platform's negligence.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The core basis is Article 42 (Rules for Notifying and Deleting Infringing Content) and Article 45 (Bearing Joint Liability for Failure to Take Necessary Measures When Knowing or Should Have Known About Infringement) of the "E-commerce Law of the People's Republic of China" (effective from January 1, 2019); as well as Articles 57 and 63 of the "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended on April 23, 2019). Practical suggestions: Send an effective notice containing ownership and preliminary evidence of infringement to the platform and keep a record of it; respond cautiously to the counter-notice forwarded by the platform; list the platform as a co-defendant when it obviously knows or should have known about the infringement, and claim expanded joint liability; and preserve evidence of the platform's handling of the infringement. For platform contract reviews, relevant provisions can be referenced accordingly.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal servicesCoordinate and plan things in an organized and efficient way, ensuring that all aspects are considered and resources are utilized effectively.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

The platform is not an automatic safe haven. Rights holders cannot simply send a vague complaint when protecting their rights, but should submit initial evidence of ownership and infringement, and fix the platform's processing time limit. When the platform restores the content after receiving a counter-notice, they should promptly file a lawsuit and apply for preservation. For the platform, establishing an infringement identification and rapid processing mechanism can reduce associated risks. For trademark-related criminal or administrative complaints, they can evaluate the situation in combination with specialized services and other case services.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the e-commerce platform knows about the infringement but fails to take action, will they be held liable? Can I win the lawsuit against them?

Yes. If the platform fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner after knowing or should have known about the infringement, or after receiving a valid notice from the rights holder, it shall bear joint and several liability for the part of the damages that have been expanded with the infringer in accordance with the law. However, knowing or should have known requires evidence, and vague complaints are difficult to hold accountable. The outcome depends on whether you can prove that the platform was aware of the situation or that the notice was valid and the processing was delayed. A lawyer can help you standardize the notice, fix evidence of the platform's negligence, and list the platform as a co-defendant to claim joint and several liability, rather than guaranteeing a specific outcome.

Q2: To hold the platform accountable, what evidence do I need to prepare?

The core elements include: evidence of the ownership and popularity of the trademark rights; effective notifications sent to the platform and delivery receipts (including evidence of ownership and initial evidence of infringement); evidence that the platform failed to take measures such as deletion, blocking, or disconnecting links within a reasonable timeframe (page snapshots and communication records); evidence that the platform knew or should have known about the infringement (repeated infringement, algorithm-based recommendations, and obvious trademark infringement); and the quantification of the extent of the damages. The materials are organized around the effectiveness of the notifications and the platform's delay in processing them.

Q3: How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to sue the platform and the infringing merchants?

The attorney's fees are negotiated between the law firm and the client. In intellectual property cases, fees are typically charged on a contingency basis or based on a percentage of the litigation value, with the specific terms subject to the contract of engagement. There is no nationwide standard pricing. Listing the platform as a co-defendant will increase the workload of evidence collection and litigation procedures, resulting in correspondingly higher fees. It is recommended to request a detailed fee breakdown, clarifying the stages of representation and whether it includes litigation fees, notarization fees, and other third-party expenses. This should be weighed against the potential scale of compensation to determine the cost-effectiveness of the investment.

Q4: How long does it usually take for the notification platform to hold the judgment platform accountable?

The platform usually has an internal time limit of several days to 15 days to handle complaints; after entering litigation, the first-instance ordinary procedure is completed within six months and the summary procedure within three months, and the time required for retrieving platform data may be even longer. If the platform issues a counter-notice to restore the link, it is necessary to sue and preserve the evidence in time. Overall, it often takes several months from the complaint to the judgment. It is recommended to fix the evidence at the notification stage to avoid the platform using the transfer of the notice to exempt itself from liability.

Q5: I want the infringing platform and the seller to compensate me. What should I do specifically in the first step?

Here are the four steps recommended: 1. Organize the ownership and reputation of the trademark rights, as well as evidence of infringement links. 2. Send an effective notice containing ownership and preliminary evidence of infringement to the platform and keep a record of it, giving a reasonable timeframe for processing. 3. If the platform delays or fails to process the notice, collect evidence of its negligence and list it as a co-defendant to claim expanded joint and several liability. 4. Simultaneously sue the direct infringing merchants, with a lawyer coordinating the compensation base and burden of proof. Throughout the process, preserve page snapshots and communication records.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Hengluo Law Firm for specific situations.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Hengluo 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. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.