After further investigation, Li is not a franchise dealer of Haier trademark owner, but the business scope approved in his business license of individual industrial and commercial households is Haier brand washing machine retail, and the washing machines sold in his store have been identified by Haier trademark owner and proved to be genuine. There are two different views on whether Li's behavior constitutes trademark infringement. The first view is that, combined with the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights, as long as the Haier brand washing machine distributed by Li is genuine, he has the right to use Haier registered trademark in the store, which does not constitute trademark infringement. The second view is that although the Haier brand washing machine distributed by Li is genuine, its unauthorized use of Haier's registered trademark in this store constitutes an infringement of Article 52 (5) of the Trademark Law, "causing other damage to the exclusive right of others to register a trademark". I think the second view is correct. The reasons are as follows: The so-called exhaustion of trademark rights principle means that after the trademark owner or the licensor with his consent put the goods with trademarks on the market in a legal way, the trademark owner has exhausted the trademark rights of these goods and has no right to prohibit or hinder others from using their registered trademarks properly and reasonably in order to sell the goods in the market again. However, neither the Trademark Law and its implementing regulations, nor the relevant judicial interpretations in the Supreme People's Court have clearly stipulated the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights, which has brought difficulties to industrial and commercial authorities and courts in handling related trademark cases. The legal basis of establishing the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights lies in that trademark rights, as an important intellectual property, have the inherent exclusiveness of intellectual property rights. However, just as there is no unrestricted absolute right, the exclusiveness of trademark right is not absolute. The basic function of a trademark is to distinguish the source of goods. In the process of sales, trademarks and commodities are bound to be linked together. For this reason, in the process of selling goods with other people's trademarks in a legal way, sellers will inevitably use other people's trademarks within the necessary scope, such as marking trademarks on the price tag of goods and displaying trademarks in advertisements. The implementation of these acts should not be based on the permission of the trademark owner, who has no right to interfere with and prevent the legitimate and reasonable use of trademarks within the necessary scope, otherwise it may lead to the abuse of trademark rights and hinder the free circulation of goods and healthy competition order. Regulating the abuse of intellectual property rights, including trademark rights, is an important part of China's anti-monopoly legal system. Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates: "This Law does not apply to the acts of business operators exercising intellectual property rights in accordance with laws and administrative regulations on intellectual property rights; However, this Law shall apply to the acts of business operators who abuse intellectual property rights and exclude or restrict competition. " From the explanation of the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights, we can see that "fair and reasonable use" is the core condition for the application of this principle. So what is "fair and reasonable use"? In my opinion, the behavior that constitutes a fair and reasonable use of a trademark should have the following elements: (1) subjectively out of goodwill, (2) not being used as a trademark of one's own goods, (3) only being used to explain or describe the characteristics, sources and uses of one's own goods, (4) not deceiving and misleading consumers, and reducing consumers' evaluation of the reputation of the trademark. In recent years, the franchise system of brand household appliances has become the mainstream model for the development of brand household appliances manufacturers (trademark owners), who often choose franchisees with higher standards. In contrast, the general distributors of branded household appliances generally have a certain gap in purchasing channels, employees, technical guidance, management level, store layout and after-sales service level. Some ordinary dealers make consumers mistakenly think that they are franchisees by highlighting the trademark of the trademark owner on the signboard of the merchant. Because of the gap between consumers and franchisees in purchasing channels, technical guidance and after-sales service, consumers often can't get the necessary technical guidance and after-sales service is difficult to guarantee. Once a fault occurs, it will inevitably damage the brand reputation of brand home appliances. Therefore, in this case, ordinary dealers can't use the exhaustion doctrine principle of trademark rights against trademark owners, and trademark owners have the right to pursue their trademark infringement responsibilities. In this case, although the Haier brand washing machine sold by Li is genuine, he still uses the Haier trademark with bright colors and large fonts as the business trademark in the store, knowing that it is not the franchise dealer of Haier trademark owner. This way of use is enough to make consumers mistakenly think that Li's shop has a special connection with Haier trademark owner, and it is easy for consumers to mistakenly think that it is a franchise dealer of Haier trademark owner. It can be seen that Li is not kind subjectively. At the same time, compared with franchisees, it is difficult for Li to ensure that the Haier brand washing machines he sells get formal after-sales service, which reduces consumers' evaluation of Haier's trademark reputation to some extent.