There are at least two negative impacts of adopting this calculation standard: First, this calculation method objectively enables infringers to reduce production and sales costs, thus damaging both the vital interests and consumption safety of consumers and seriously damaging the trademark reputation of the right holder; Second, even if the infringer does not reduce production and sales costs, but uses marketing strategies such as ultra-low-price sales and sales channels such as occupying the middle and low-income consumer groups to squeeze out the rights holders in every possible way, he can still obtain huge profits, which also damages the rights. People's interests also obscure consumers' right to know. The standard of calculating the genuine price has at least three advantages: first, it helps deter infringers from committing illegal acts and increases the intensity of punishing infringement; second, it helps protect the consumption safety of the whole society by cracking down on illegal crimes; third, it calculates The method is simple and clear, with low enforcement risk and high enforcement efficiency. The author believes that in order to get out of the vicious circle of intellectual property protection and purify the economic environment to a greater extent, it is urgent to adopt this calculation standard through legislation. Article 52 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law" stipulates that for infringement of the exclusive right to register a trademark, if the illegal business volume cannot be calculated, the amount of fine shall be not more than 100,000 yuan. So how should we understand the "illegal business volume cannot be calculated" here? In some trademark infringement cases, some infringers usually adopt the method of not issuing purchase and sales receipts, leaving no purchase and sales records, warehouse inventory and sales site Separation, placing only a few samples of infringing goods at the sales site, concealing the true situation of infringement, setting up obstacles for administrative law enforcement, trying to circumvent the law and evade crackdowns. Therefore, to put it simply, "illegal business volume cannot be calculated" applies when the infringer fails to provide or fails to truthfully and effectively provide information that can be used to verify its illegal business volume, including documents, records, suppliers, etc. The trademark administrative law enforcement agency also The illegal business volume cannot be ascertained because the concept of "illegal business volume cannot be calculated" is too abstract and difficult to grasp in actual law enforcement. Therefore, the following points should be done when understanding and applying this concept: First, for If the alleged infringer fails to provide or truthfully and effectively provides information that can be used to verify its illegal business volume, it cannot be generally judged as a situation where the illegal business volume cannot be calculated. It should be comprehensively considered in conjunction with other circumstances. For example, whether the alleged infringer has any previous Records of infringement or repeated infringement, or proof from the upper-level suppliers, lower-level sellers or agents of the products whether they have produced or sold infringing goods; second, Article 5 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law" empowers administrative enforcement The agency has a certain degree of discretion, but during the case investigation and handling process, it should still investigate carefully, collect evidence strictly, try to verify the information on the illegal business volume of the suspected infringer, and do not easily judge that its illegal business volume cannot be calculated; thirdly, during the case investigation and handling process, As long as the administrative penalty decision has not been made, the information on illegal business volume will be used when it is discovered. Repeated infringement means that the same trademark infringer continues to infringe on the exclusive rights of others to register trademarks after being punished once by the administrative law enforcement agency. Regarding the issue of repeated infringement and criminal liability, first of all, we have seen that the judicial interpretation of intellectual property rights has stipulated that the criminal liability of the infringer for counterfeiting someone else’s registered trademark can only be pursued if the illegal business volume reaches a certain amount. However, the judicial interpretation also stipulates that, Although the illegal business volume does not reach this standard, if the infringer has been subject to more than two administrative sanctions or criminal penalties and counterfeits other people's registered trademarks, he can still be held criminally responsible. Here we can draw a preliminary conclusion that when considering the circumstances of the infringer's crime, generally speaking, reaching a certain amount of illegal business is one of the criteria for the seriousness of the infringement. However, if the perpetrator has more than two counterfeiting The act of registering a trademark by others, and the cumulative amount is relatively large, is still considered serious. Here, the quantity and amount of illegal business revenue for each infringement are still of substantial significance in determining the criminal liability of the infringer. Secondly, there is the issue of whether the illegal business revenue from repeated infringements can be calculated cumulatively. According to relevant legal provisions, for those who have repeatedly infringed on the exclusive rights of others' registered trademarks, as long as they have not been dealt with, their illegal business revenue shall be calculated cumulatively.5. The standards for illegal business volume that constitute intellectual property crimes should not distinguish between individuals and units. Some laws and regulations on trademark law enforcement have stipulated different illegal business volume standards for units and individuals in terms of the crime of counterfeiting trademarks, such as the amount of illegal business for units. It must be more than 500,000 yuan, and the amount of personal illegal business is more than 100,000 yuan. This provision is obviously unreasonable and difficult to operate in actual law enforcement activities. First of all, with the rapid development of the market economy, economic entities have become increasingly diversified and monolithic, and the concept of "unit" has been increasingly weakened and diluted. Secondly, the standard for distinguishing between units and individuals gives infringers an opportunity to evade legal sanctions by pretending to be an unit and committing infringements as individuals. We are pleased to see that the latest judicial interpretation of intellectual property crimes has clearly eliminated the distinction between units and individuals.