Current location - Trademark Inquiry Complete Network - Trademark inquiry - Recycle 12 bottles of Maotai and sell them at a price increase of 1 per bottle. After being identified as fake wine, the seller was sentenced to one refund and three compensation. Is the seller wronge
Recycle 12 bottles of Maotai and sell them at a price increase of 1 per bottle. After being identified as fake wine, the seller was sentenced to one refund and three compensation. Is the seller wronge
Recycle 12 bottles of Maotai and sell them at a price increase of 1 per bottle. After being identified as fake wine, the seller was sentenced to one refund and three compensation. Is the seller wronged?

When the seller recycled Maotai liquor from a third person, he failed to inspect the supplier's license and the factory inspection certificate or other qualified certificates of Maotai liquor, so he was fined one fake and lost three, and the seller was not wronged.

Nowadays, with the continuous development of the times, people's quality of life has also improved. Drinking a bottle of Maotai at a banquet can make them more face-saving. However, Maotai in the market is real and fake, so we must know it in advance before buying it, so as to better protect our property safety. In this incident, the non-staple food store should constitute consumer fraud, and it can be regarded as a great satisfaction.

what happened?

A food store in Wenzhou recycled two boxes of 12 bottles of Maotai at a price of 3,7 yuan per square meter, and sold them at 3,8 yuan per box. Unexpectedly, the owner of this grocery store felt very wronged when two bottles of Maotai were identified as fake wine buyers and brought to court. After the incident, it triggered a hot discussion among netizens on the Internet. After the market supervision bureau entrusted Guizhou Moutai Co., Ltd. to identify the Moutai involved, it was concluded that Moutai was a fake and shoddy product with a registered trademark, so the dealer had to pay Mr. Li three times.

what is the legal basis?

according to article 55 of China's law on the protection of consumers' rights and interests, if an operator commits fraud in providing goods or services, he should increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumers according to their requirements. article 148 of the food safety law stipulates that if he produces food that does not meet the food safety standards or manages food that he knows does not meet the food safety standards, he needs to pay compensation. therefore, the court found that Mr. Li's claim for refund of one and compensation of three was reasonably supported.

what is my personal opinion?

I think food safety is more important than Taishan Mountain. Every dealer should ensure that the food or drinks that do not meet the relevant standards should be eliminated in time during the operation process, so as to better maintain social order and protect the market environment.