Yes, there have been cases before. I can share it with you

1. A civil lawsuit filed by the "Taobao" platform against sellers of fake brand names was heard in the Shenzhen Longgang District People's Court. The plaintiff Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Taobao") sued the three defendants for violating the network service contract and damaging the plaintiff's goodwill by selling counterfeit goods, and claimed a total of 3.21 million yuan.

2. In June 2016, Taobao used its big data anti-counterfeiting system and discovered that the Swarovski watches sold in two stores were suspected of being counterfeit. After identification by the brand owner, the packaging of the goods sold by the defendant did not match the original product. The workmanship was rough and the color was strange. The rights holder concluded that the goods involved were fake.

3. It is reported that two shops suspected of selling counterfeit goods were registered by Liu Moujun and Wang Mouyi, the two defendants in the case, and Taobao transferred the clues to the police. On August 10, 2016, the police investigated Wang Mouyi's business and residence in Buji, arrested Liu Jun on the spot, and found that the shop involved was actually run by Liu Jun and his wife Chen Mouhua. Both Liu and Chen were sentenced by the Luohu District People's Court for selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. According to the legal principle of "punishment before people", after the two defendants were sentenced, relevant civil litigation also started.

4. This case is the first time that an e-commerce platform has used civil litigation to prosecute counterfeit sellers. During the trial, Taobao quoted a professor’s research report, believing that every counterfeiting or quality dispute will significantly reduce the overall consumption activity of consumers on the e-commerce platform. Taobao also provided the court with a method for calculating losses, and concluded that 321 The amount of compensation is RMB 10,000. In addition, Taobao requested the court to order the three defendants to publish statements in prominent locations in newspapers and online media to eliminate the impact of the defendants’ malicious counterfeit sales on the plaintiff’s reputation.