[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, selling genuine products generally does not constitute infringement of trademark rights—the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights: after the products are put on the market by the trademark owner or its licensee, reselling them does not constitute infringement, and reselling them at a low price does not constitute infringement either; however, there are four red lines that will break this protection: first, the source of the "genuine products" is unclear or adulterated (selling genuine and fake products together, refurbishing and passing them off as new products); second, altering the products themselves (repackaging, modifying, or replacing the packaging while still using the original trademark); third, promoting them beyond a reasonable scope (implying an authorization relationship with the brand, or disparaging official channels); fourth, the special risks of gray imports (the products of parallel imports are legal, but there are disputes over quality standards and warranty differences). The most common violations committed by e-commerce stores are the first and second points: keeping purchase invoices is the only safeguard.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Distributors sell products at low prices through unauthorized channels, and purchasing agents clear out their remaining inventory at low prices—brands issue warnings about "low-price infringement" and even file lawsuits directly; sellers are stunned: I'm selling genuine products, so why am I infringing? The answer from the Trademark Law: Selling genuine products doesn't constitute infringement, but the burden of proof for "genuine products" lies with you.

II. Key points of contention

First, the application and exceptions of the principle of exhaustion of rights. Second, the standard of proof for the source of genuine products. Third, the boundary of infringement between product modification and advertising. Fourth, response and compliance after being sued.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer: The logic and exceptions of exhaustion of trademark rights: The function of a trademark is to identify the source of a product. After the product is first put on the market, the trademark owner's right to prohibit the sale of that product is exhausted. Whether the resale price is high or low, or whether it is authorized by the distributor, it does not constitute infringement. There are four exceptions: changes in the product's condition (repackaging, dilution, refurbishing, or modification with the original trademark still attached—reselling in large and small bottles is a typical losing case), misleading propaganda (claiming "official authorization" or "direct brand supply" without authorization), illegal sources (smuggling, stolen goods), and adulterated products sold together with genuine ones. Most of the "infringement warnings" issued by brands against low-price parallel imports cannot stand up in court, but if the letter accuses the seller of "selling genuine and fake products together," the seller must prove their innocence with purchase invoices. The second layer: Standards for proof of source: The two elements of the defense of legitimate source—subjective good faith (not knowing and not supposed to know that it's a fake) and the legality of the source (evidence chain of purchasing from regular channels). Evidence list: Purchase contracts and invoices with suppliers, payment records, logistics documents, and supplier qualifications (brand authorization chain or regular distributor status). High risk of missing invoices—the habit of e-commerce sellers not issuing invoices when "purchasing goods from stalls" is like going unclothed in trademark lawsuits. Reasonable due diligence: If a seller purchases a famous brand at a price significantly below market value, the court will presume that the seller should have known about the abnormal source of the goods—the low price itself can undermine the claim of good faith, so the evidence of the source must be more solid. The third layer: Red lines for modification and propaganda: Repackaging and modification—repackaging large-sized genuine products into small bottles, selling free samples separately (disputable whether samples are removed from genuine products, but unauthorized repackaging is generally considered infringement), and disassembling combination sets for resale. Boundaries of propaganda—avoiding implied authorization of the brand's proprietary terms in store names and page descriptions, and statements like "cheaper than the official" are acceptable, but "official identical direct supply" is risky. Price comparison and parallel imports—genuine low prices themselves do not constitute infringement or unfair competition (free pricing), and brand letters pressuring "parallel imports control" can require them to provide evidence of infringement. If there is no evidence, simply stating their position in the reply letter suffices. The fourth layer: Response after being sued: Receiving a warning letter—fixing evidence of own purchases, verifying the batch of suspected products, and responding to the other party to clarify the infringing products and basis. Being sued—first conducting product identity comparison (whether genuine, batch source), organizing purchase evidence chains, and evaluating the scope for settlement and defense (timely removing infringing products to limit losses if genuine adulterated, and negotiating reductions or exemptions). Compliance checklist: Keeping invoices and supplier qualifications for each batch, removing authorization hints from page descriptions, not repackaging or modifying products, and avoiding abnormally low-priced sources. Platform-side response: Filing appeals based on purchase invoices as the core evidence, and promptly removing infringing products and evaluating whether to counter-sue for malicious complaints.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

The first step is to keep invoices and supplier qualifications throughout the entire procurement process, and file the certificates by batch. The second step is to remove any implied authorization from the page promotions and refrain from repackaging or modifying the products. The third step is to fix the evidence first when receiving a warning letter, then respond by requiring the other party to clarify the basis for the infringement. The fourth step is to defend against the lawsuit primarily based on the product's identity and legal source. The main legal basis includes Article 57 and Article 64 (Legal Source Defense) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 75 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, and relevant provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

Three key points for selling genuine products at low prices: Exhausting the right of use to protect resale, and low prices themselves do not constitute infringement; The four red lines are adulteration, modification, misleading propaganda, and illegal sources; The purchase invoice is the only safeguard; Purchasing goods from stalls without keeping receipts is the same as going unprotected. For trademark disputes, you can seek help through legal channels.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawYou can combine the overall solution for services involving e-commerce complianceBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor those who are involved in platform appeals, you can refer to the following content for reference.Special servicesFor any questions regarding difficult situations, please feel free to consult us.Special services and other casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What should I do if the brand owner accuses me of "channel conflict and infringement"?

Illegal reselling of goods does not constitute trademark infringement; the reply letter should specify the infringing products and the legal basis, and secure the company's own authentic product certificates. Warnings without legal basis can be ignored.

Q2: Is it illegal to sell sample products in repackaged form?

Unauthorized repackaging and sales are generally considered infringements (as the product's condition has been altered), unless authorized in writing by the brand owner.

Q3: Can the defense of legitimate source exempt from liability for compensation?

The compensation liability can stop the infringement (if the infringer acts in good faith and the source is legitimate), but the infringer may still be required to stop selling the infringing products. A complete chain of evidence is a prerequisite for this.

Q4: What should I pay attention to when reselling authentic products purchased by a purchasing agent?

Keep the overseas purchase receipts and logistics records, and do not imply authorization in promotions; the disputes over taxes and quality standards of gray market imports will be dealt with separately.

Q5: How to appeal if my product has been removed from the platform?

Submit the purchase invoice, authorization chain, and batch evidence of the goods for appeal according to the platform rules; those who repeatedly file malicious complaints can counter-sue for unfair competition.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

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 limits.Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available 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 a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.