If it is indeed an infringement, the only option is to remove the product from the shelves and receive penalties.

According to Article 63 of the "Taobao Rules"

Improper use of the rights of others means that the user engages in any of the following behaviors:

(1) The seller is Improper use of other people’s trademarks, copyrights and other rights in the product information published or the store names and domain names used;

(2) The seller is suspected of improperly using other people’s trademarks, copyrights and patent rights when selling goods and other rights;

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

If any of the above behaviors occur, Taobao will delete the products or information posted by members that improperly use the rights of others, and will deduct 2 points each time. Complaints made by the same right holder against the same seller within 3 days will be deemed as one complaint.

Extended information:

1. The subjective fault of the perpetrator does not constitute the crime of infringement of intellectual property rights

First of all, it should be determined by the characteristics of the crime of infringement of intellectual property rights itself. Yes, from the perspective of criminal law theory, intellectual property crimes can be classified as administrative crimes, which are serious violations of economic and administrative laws.

For example, the "Trademark Law" and "Patent Law" formulated by the state ", "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", "Copyright Law", etc., due to their weak ethical condemnability, administrative offenders should not be too harsh on their subjective criminal intent. Only when the perpetrator is intentional, it should be regarded as a crime Negligent behavior is usually treated as a general illegal behavior;

Secondly, the reason why intellectual property crimes can only be constituted by intention and not by negligence is also determined by the provisions of the criminal law, because according to the provisions of the criminal law , Only criminal liability is stipulated in the law for negligence crimes.

It can be seen that whether the crime of infringement of intellectual property rights can be constituted by negligence should be limited to the provisions of the criminal law. The criminal law does not explicitly stipulate that even if the behavior is harmful to society, it cannot be treated as a crime.

Thirdly, negligence does not constitute a crime, which is in line with the principles of international legislation. Except for Italy, most countries and No laws in the region include negligence as a crime. Therefore, including negligence as a subjective aspect of the crime of infringement of intellectual property rights is not only inconsistent with the principles of criminal law, but also contradicts the principle of statutory punishment. It is also inconsistent with the world's criminal legislation on crimes of infringement of intellectual property rights. development trend.

2. The perpetrator’s inaction does not constitute the crime of intellectual property infringement

The subjective requirement for the crime of intellectual property infringement is “for profit,” which determines that the perpetrator must take active actions Actions and pursuit of criminal results are expected to occur, that is to say, objective behaviors 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, which refers to harmful behavior in which the actor has a specific legal obligation to perform a certain behavior but cannot perform it. To judge the crime of omission, the following three conditions should be met.

First, the perpetrator has a specific legal obligation to perform a certain act, which is a prerequisite for omission.

Secondly, the actor has the ability to perform specific legal obligations, which is an important condition for the establishment of omission.

Third, the actor fails to perform the specific legal obligations for the act, which is a key condition for the establishment of omission. It needs to be emphasized that violation of obligations expressly stipulated in non-criminal laws does not always constitute a basis for an obligation to omit. Only those that are recognized or required by criminal law can be regarded as a basis for action.

In other words, in this case, the obligations expressly stipulated in the law require the provisions of other laws and regulations on the one hand, and the recognition of the criminal law at the same time. If there are only provisions of other laws and regulations, but no recognition or recognition of the criminal law. Requirements,

Baidu Encyclopedia - Crime of Intellectual Property Infringement