If there is infringement, you can only take the goods off the shelf and receive punishment.

According to Article 63 of the Taobao Rules,

improper use of other people's rights refers to any of the following acts of the user:

(1) The seller improperly uses other people's trademark rights, copyright rights and other rights in the published commodity information or the store name and domain name used;

(2) The seller sells goods on suspicion of improper use of other people's trademark rights, copyrights, patents and other rights;

(3) The commodity information released by the seller or other information used by the seller causes confusion, misunderstanding or unfair competition among consumers.

in case of any of the above acts, Taobao will delete the goods or information released by members that improperly use the rights of others, and deduct 2 points each time. A complaint made by the same obligee to the same seller within 3 days shall be regarded as one complaint.

/iknow-pic.cdn.bcebos.com/63d9f2d3572c11dfaee49efa6e2762df73c235"target="_blank"title=""class="ikqb_img_alink"> /iknow-pic.cdn.bcebos.com/63d9f2d3572c11dfaee49efa6e2762df73c235? x-bce-process=image%2Fresize%2Cm_lfit%2Cw_6%2Ch_8%2Climit_1%2Fquality%2Cq_85%2Fformat%2Cf_auto"esrc="/63d9f2d3572c11dfaee49efa6e2762df73c235"/>

Extended information:

First, the subjective negligence of the actor does not constitute the crime of infringing intellectual property rights

First of all, it should be determined by the characteristics of the crime of infringing intellectual property rights. From the perspective of criminal law theory, intellectual property rights crimes can be classified as administrative crimes, that is, acts that violate the economic and administrative laws with serious circumstances, such as the Trademark Law and the Law formulated by the state. Because of its weak ethical condemnation, administrative criminals should not be too harsh on their subjective intentions, and the perpetrators should be treated as crimes only if they are intentional, while negligent acts are usually treated as general illegal acts.

Secondly, the reason why intellectual property crimes can only be constituted by intention but not by negligence is also determined by the provisions of the criminal law, because according to the provisions of the criminal law, only those who have provisions on negligent crimes can bear criminal responsibility.

From this, it can be seen that whether the crime of infringing intellectual property rights can be constituted by negligence should be limited by the provisions of the criminal law. There is no explicit provision in the criminal law that an act is immediately harmful to society and cannot be treated as a crime.

Thirdly, negligence does not constitute a crime, which is in line with the principle of international legislation. Except Italy, the laws of most countries and regions in the world do not include negligence as a crime. Therefore, the inclusion of negligence in the subjective aspect of crimes against intellectual property rights is not only inconsistent with the principle of criminal law, but also with the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime, and it is also inconsistent with the development trend of criminal legislation on crimes against intellectual property rights in the world.

second, the actor's inaction does not constitute the crime of infringing intellectual property rights

The subjective requirement of the crime of infringing intellectual property rights is "for the purpose of making profits", which determines that all actors take positive actions and pursue the hope that the criminal result will happen, that is to say, all objective actions take the form of actions, and inaction does not meet the objective requirements of the crime.

omission is a manifestation of harmful behavior corresponding to action, that is, the actor has a specific legal obligation to implement a certain behavior, and he can perform it but does not perform it. To judge the crime of omission should meet the following three conditions.

First, the actor has a specific legal obligation to carry out a certain act, which is a prerequisite to constitute omission.

Second, the actor has the ability to perform a specific legal obligation, which is an important condition for the establishment of omission.

Third, the actor has failed to perform a specific legal obligation as an act, which is a key condition for the establishment of omission. What needs to be emphasized is that not all violations of the obligations expressly stipulated in non-criminal laws constitute the obligation basis for inaction, and only those that are recognized or required by criminal law can be regarded as the basis for action.

in other words, in this case, the obligations expressly stipulated by the law, on the one hand, require the provisions of other laws and regulations, and at the same time require the approval of criminal law. If there are only provisions of other laws and regulations without the approval or requirements of criminal law,

/baike.baidu.com/item/%E4% BE% B5% E7% 8A% AF% E7% 9F% A5% E8% AF% 86% E4% BA% A7% E6% 9D% 83% E7% BD% AA/9955122. Baidu Encyclopedia-Crime of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights