According to Rule 63 of Taobao Rules

Improper use of the rights of others refers to one of the following behaviors of users:

(1) The seller improperly uses the trademark rights, copyright rights and other rights of others in the published commodity information or the used font name and domain name;

(two) the seller sells goods suspected of improper use of other people's trademark rights, copyrights, patents and other rights;

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

In case of the above acts, Taobao will delete the goods or information released by members that improperly use the rights of others, and deduct 2 points each time. Complaints made by the same obligee to the same seller within 3 days shall be regarded as 1 complaints.

/iknow-pic.cdn.bcebos.com/63d9f2d3572c1/kloc49efa6e2762d0f703c235 "target =" _ blank "title =" "class =" ikqb _ img _ alink ">. /iknow-pic . cdn . BCE Bos . com/63d 9 f2d 3572 c 1 1 dfae 49 EFA 6 e 2762d 0 f 703 c 235？ x-BCE-process = image % 2f resize % 2Cm _ lfit % 2Cw _ 600% 2Ch _ 800% 2c limit _ 1% 2f quality % 2Cq _ 85% 2f format % 2Cf _ auto " esrc = "/ 63 d9 f2d 3572 c 1 1 dfae49 EFA 6 e 2762d 0 f 703 c 235 "/>；

Extended data:

First, the subjective fault of the actor does not constitute the crime of infringing intellectual property rights.

First of all, it should be determined by the characteristics of the crime of infringing intellectual property rights. From the perspective of criminal law theory, intellectual property crimes can be classified as administrative crimes, that is, acts that violate economic and administrative laws and have serious circumstances.

For example, the trademark law, patent law, anti-unfair competition law and copyright law formulated by the state, because the moral condemnation of administrative criminals is weak, they should not be too harsh on their subjective intentions, and the perpetrators should be treated as crimes only on purpose, and negligent acts are usually treated as general illegal acts;

Secondly, the reason why intellectual property crimes can only be constituted by intention but not negligence is also determined by the provisions of the criminal law, because according to the provisions of the criminal law, only those who have provisions on negligent crimes will bear criminal responsibility.

It can be seen that whether negligence can constitute the crime of infringing intellectual property rights should be limited by the criminal law. The criminal law does not clearly stipulate that an act is directly harmful to society and cannot be punished as a crime.

Third, negligence does not constitute a crime, which is in line with international legislative principles. Except Italy, most countries and regions in the world do not include negligence as a crime. Therefore, bringing negligence into the subjective aspect of crimes against intellectual property rights not only does not conform to the principle of criminal law, the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a crime, but also does not conform to the development trend of criminal legislation against intellectual property rights crimes in the world.

Second, the actor's inaction does not constitute a crime of infringing intellectual property rights.

The subjective element of the crime of infringing intellectual property rights is "for profit", which determines that all actors take positive actions and pursue the hope of the crime, that is to say, all objective actions take the form of actions, and inaction does not meet the objective elements of the crime.

Inaction is a manifestation of harmful behavior corresponding to action, which means that the actor has a specific legal obligation to implement a certain behavior, which can be implemented but not implemented. Judging the crime of omission should meet the following three conditions,

First, the actor has a specific legal obligation to carry out a certain behavior, which is a prerequisite for inaction.

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

Third, the actor failed to fulfill the specific legal obligations of the act, which is the key condition for the establishment of omission. It should be emphasized that not all acts that violate the obligations explicitly stipulated in non-criminal law constitute the obligation basis of omission, and only acts recognized or required by criminal law can be used as the basis of action.

In other words, in this case, the obligations expressly stipulated by the law, on the one hand, need the provisions of other laws and regulations, but also need the recognition of criminal law. If there are only other laws and regulations, there is no recognition or requirement of criminal law.

/baike.baidu.com/item/%E4% BE% B5% E7% 8A% AF% E7% 9F% A5% E8% AF% 86% E4% BA% A7% E6% 9D% 83% E7% BD% AA/995565438+