It depends on the situation.

Case Facts: During the "Red Shield to Protect Farmers" operation, the economic inspection team of a certain county's industrial and commercial bureau discovered that the compound fertilizer distributed by the agricultural supplies company infringed the exclusive rights of the "Red Triangle" trademark registered by Sinopec Nanjing Chemical Industry Company. Further investigation revealed that the agricultural supplies company purchased 37 tons of the infringing compound fertilizer, sold 20 tons to various agricultural supplies operation departments, and left 17 tons unsold.

The 17 tons that were not sold were sealed by the county's Technical Supervision Bureau (which was found to be unqualified after testing) in accordance with the provisions of the "Product Quality Law". The Bureau of Technical Supervision is investigating the agricultural supplies company and has not yet made any decision. How should the Industrial and Commercial Bureau deal with it? There are several different views. The first view of the dispute is that the State Council has clearly stipulated that the industrial and commercial department is responsible for the supervision of commodity quality in the circulation field. The industrial and commercial bureau can separately impose penalties on the 37 tons of compound fertilizer distributed by agricultural input companies in accordance with the Trademark Law and the Product Quality Law. . Each agricultural input management department may be punished separately based on the quantity distributed and in accordance with the Trademark Law and the Product Quality Law. Comrades who hold this view believe that agricultural input companies and various agricultural input operation departments have committed two illegal acts, namely selling trademark infringing goods and selling substandard goods. The second view is that the Technical Supervision Bureau has not opened an investigation into each agricultural input management department, and the Industry and Commerce Bureau can, in accordance with the Trademark Law and the Product Quality Law, investigate each agricultural input operation department for trademark infringement and illegal sales of substandard goods. impose penalties. Since the Technical Supervision Bureau has already filed a case against the agricultural input company, it is appropriate not to deal with it for the time being. If the Technical Supervision Bureau fines an agricultural input company for distributing 37 tons of compound fertilizer, the Industry and Commerce Bureau can further impose a fine on 37 tons of compound fertilizer for selling trademark-infringing goods. If the Technical Supervision Bureau only fines the 17 tons of compound fertilizer that was sealed, the Industry and Commerce Bureau can fine the other 20 tons of compound fertilizer according to the two illegal acts of "selling trademark infringing goods and selling substandard goods." Fines will be imposed based on trademark infringement. Some people who hold this view believe that there are two illegal acts, and the difference lies in considering the possibility of punishment by the Technical Supervision Bureau. The third view is that although there are two illegal phenomena of "unqualified passing off as qualified and trademark infringement" in the compound fertilizers distributed by agricultural input companies and various agricultural input operation departments, they do not belong to the aggregation of illegal activities. The producer of this compound fertilizer committed two illegal acts by "passing off as unqualified as qualified" and "trademark infringement". This is a combination of illegal acts and should be punished separately according to the two illegal acts. For the agricultural supplies company and each agricultural supplies operation department, they only committed one illegal act - the sale of compound fertilizer with "two illegal phenomena", which is a combination of illegal acts and should be stipulated in the "Product Quality Law" and " Severe penalties are imposed in the Trademark Law. Therefore, if the Technical Supervision Bureau does not initiate an investigation into each agricultural input management department, the Industry and Commerce Administration may impose penalties on each agricultural input operation department based on the Product Quality Law and the Trademark Law. If the Technical Supervision Bureau fines an agricultural input company for distributing 37 tons of compound fertilizer, the Industry and Commerce Bureau can no longer impose a fine on the agricultural input company, but it can impose penalties other than fines. If the Technical Supervision Bureau only imposes a fine on the 17 tons of compound fertilizer that was sealed, the Industry and Commerce Bureau can impose heavier penalties on the other 20 tons of compound fertilizer according to the Product Quality Law and Trademark Law. The author believes that the focus of the dispute is whether "selling unqualified compound fertilizer with trademark infringement" is one illegal act or two illegal acts. Illegal behavior refers to behavior that the perpetrator commits in violation of legal provisions within a certain period of time. According to the composition of its illegal content, it can be divided into several illegal acts and the same illegal act. For example, if someone sells Sanwu products without a business license, the two acts are independent of each other and have their own legal responsibilities. Another example is that a person sets up a stall on the side of the road to sell soy meat. The stall is set up without approval and without a license. If the sauced meat sold by the business has not been inspected, then X has committed public security traffic violations (affecting vehicle traffic), unlicensed behaviors and health violations. X's illegal acts are continuous in time, independent of each other, not interdependent, and also have Respective legal liability is typical of several violations. Another example is that a producer both counterfeits someone else’s registered trademark and uses someone else’s factory name and address on product packaging, which is also a combination of several illegal acts. These illegal acts are all attached to the packaging carrier, which is also called the aggregation of illegal acts.

Punishments for several illegal acts or aggregation of illegal acts should be characterized separately, the method and range of punishment should be determined separately, and the basis for punishment should be cited respectively. They should not be used as one type of behavior to be generally characterized and the method and range of punishment should be determined (Kong Xiangjun's "Frontiers of Fair Trade Issues" Problem Study" page 245). So how to define the same illegal act? Academics and practitioners have different understandings. One view is that "an illegal act" refers to an act that violates a legal norm. Another view is that "an illegal act" refers to a one-time act performed by the same subject based on the same facts and reasons. I believe that "an illegal act" refers to an act carried out by the same subject based on the same purpose and motivation, which can and can only constitute a complete course of action, consisting of subject, object, carrier, time, space, means and other elements. In the above case, the agricultural supplies company only implemented the sales process for the purpose of profit, which is obviously an illegal act. Further analysis, it can be determined that the producer of the compound fertilizer committed two illegal acts by "passing off as unqualified as qualified" and "trademark infringement", which is a combination of illegal acts. Therefore, the author believes that the analysis of the third view is reasonable. In the same illegal act, there is a special situation called the combination of illegal acts, that is, the same act violates two or more legal norms, resulting in different legal evaluations. Concurrence may be between laws of different natures (for example, counterfeiting someone else’s registered trademark up to a certain amount violates both the trademark law and the criminal law) or between laws of the same nature (for example, counterfeiting someone else’s registered trademark violates the trademark law) It also violates the Anti-Unfair Competition Law) and may also be violated in different provisions of the same law (such as beating others on a public car, which is a violation of the third item of Article 19 of the "Public Security Administration Punishment Regulations" and constitutes disturbing the public) Orderly behavior violates the provisions of Article 22 and constitutes an infringement of the personal rights of others). Regarding the first form of concurrence, when a certain illegal act violates both administrative legal norms and criminal law norms, the principle of "no punishment for the same" does not need to be applied except for property penalties and personal penalties. When an illegal act violates both administrative legal norms and civil law norms, it generally bears dual liability for civil and administrative penalties at the same time. As for the second form of competition, it is mainly competition in administrative legal regulations. If a certain illegal act violates two or more administrative laws and regulations and is punished by one administrative agency, the following principles can be adopted: first, the special law takes precedence over the common law; second, the later law takes precedence over the previous law; third, the transfer is carried out according to legal provisions The fourth is to adopt the standard of absorbing heavy responsibilities and absorbing light responsibilities, and choose the heavier punishment. For example, illegal purchase or sale of electric power facilities and equipment violates both Article 30 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Electric Power Facilities" and Article 3 of the "Interim Regulations on Administrative Punishments for Speculation". According to the principles and methods mentioned above, The special law "Regulations on the Protection of Electric Power Facilities" shall be applied first. If two or more legal norms are punished by multiple administrative agencies, and one agency has already imposed an administrative penalty of a fine for the illegal act, other agencies should follow the principle of "no penalty for the same offense", that is, they shall not impose more than two fines for the same illegal act. administrative penalties, but other penalties are not subject to this restriction. If an individual restaurant distributes spoiled food and poisons others, the health department may impose a fine, and the industrial and commercial department may impose other penalties in addition to the fine, such as revoking the business license. In the above case, this is the theoretical basis for the third view. There are also other understandings in the theoretical circles of "no penalty for the same". For example, if the penalty imposed by the former administrative agency is a fine of 200 yuan, and the penalty imposed by the latter administrative agency according to other laws should be within 300-800 yuan, then the latter penalty should take into account the previous penalty. The actual amount of fines that have been punished can be between 300 and 600 (800 yuan minus 200 yuan). Of course, this understanding has some truth, but it should be avoided in actual operation. After all, it is not a mainstream view. For the third form of competition, it is relatively simple and can be applied according to the principle of priority of special terms.