On May 20, luxury brand Louis Vuitton made a hot search on Weibo due to the fact that "the counter sold counterfeit goods, the court ordered the return and triple compensation".

As soon as the news came out, it sparked a lot of consumer discussion.

So, how did the whole thing go, and how could the counter sell fakes?

  Incident restoration: LV has a fraudulent act of selling counterfeit goods, refunds the purchase price and compensates three times

  Judgment information shows that the sale of fake Louis Vuitton occurred in 2020.

  In September 2020, Ms. Luo, a citizen of Changsha, Hunan Province, purchased a VAUGIRARD handbag at the Louis Vuitton counter of Changsha International Finance Center at a price of 18,700 yuan.

Suspected that she had bought a fake bag, Ms. Luo sent the purchased handbag to Hunan Co., Ltd. of China Inspection and Certification Group for inspection.

  According to the appraisal opinion, China Inspection and Certification Group Hunan Co., Ltd. believes that the handbags submitted for inspection are not produced by Louis Vuitton.

The appraisal opinion shows that the LOUIS VUITTON VAUGIRARD handbag submitted for inspection is coated canvas and leather, brown old flower/red.

The appraisal opinion is that the samples submitted for inspection do not conform to the technical information and craftsmanship characteristics announced by the brand/manufacturer.

  In this regard, the Louis Vuitton counter gave a number of "reasons", including that the qualified goods have been paid, and there is no fraud such as selling fakes; even if the plaintiff actually paid the price of the sales contract involved in the case, it may not be for living consumption needs And buy etc.

Subsequently, Ms. Luo filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Furong District, Changsha City on the grounds that the Louis Vuitton counter of Changsha International Finance Center was suspected of fraud.

  After hearing, the court held that Ms. Luo submitted shopping receipts, payment records, etc., which could prove that she had indeed purchased a handbag with the model number VAUGIRARD from the Louis Vuitton counter on that day.

As a direct store opened by Louis Vuitton (China) Commercial Sales Co., Ltd. in Changsha, the LV counter in China International Finance Center should have a clear in-out list and strict management process for receiving and selling goods, which can prove the receipt and sale of goods. The time, item number, buyer information, payment flow, etc., should be corresponding and identifiable, and the identifiability of the goods sold should bear a greater burden of proof.

In this case, the store did not submit the corresponding evidence to prove it, and should bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.

Therefore, the court found that the store, as a seller, had committed fraudulent acts of selling counterfeit goods, and should refund the purchase price and make three times the compensation.

  After the court's judgment, the staff of IFC responded to the matter, saying that the shopping mall attaches great importance to this matter, and has established a special department to investigate, and stressed that IFC resolutely safeguards the rights and interests of consumers. of consumers.

  Question 1: Why do the official directly-operated stores flow out fake products?

  In response to this incident, Zhou Ting, a luxury expert and dean of the VIP Research Institute, believes that all Louis Vuitton stores are directly operated by the official government, and there is no case of fake goods, but in fact, there will be several situations that make fake goods "Going into the room", "The most common thing is to be repackaged by the store staff. The real product has been taken away by the staff privately, and the fake product is sold to the customer. This situation exists in all luxury brands."

  As Zhou Ting said, clerks in luxury stores "dropped" genuine products, which has also happened before.

  In September 2021, the luxury brand Gucci store in Jing'an District, Shanghai reported to the police, saying that during the company's centralized spot check in the store, it was found that many different styles of leather bags in stock were identified as fakes, and it was suspected that they had been transferred. .

  The police investigation found that the clerk Jin, who had left his job at the time, had purchased the brand's low-priced fake bags on the Internet second-hand trading platform many times during his tenure as a tally clerk in the store. Fake bag, the model color is exactly the same as the real bag that was adjusted.

It turned out that Jin, in the name of "employee internal price", hung the brand's new bags on the second-hand trading website. After negotiating with the customer, he bought the same fake bag online and exchanged it for the real bag in the warehouse, and sold it at a lower price. It is sold at the counter price of 3000-5000 yuan.

Jin has used the same method several times to sell 5 counter genuine bags, with a cumulative profit of more than 57,000 yuan.

Later, when Jin learned that the company would conduct spot checks on the inventory, he voluntarily resigned.

  In addition to being "transferred" by the clerk, Zhou Ting believes that there are three other situations in which luxury counters are "entered into the room" by fake goods.

First of all, the team jointly sold fakes behind the back of the brand. "At present, there are even special POS machines for selling fakes in the market. Previously, a well-known watch brand had 5 POS machines in a store, and 3 of them were dedicated to selling fakes. A well-known case of team selling fakes was a one-stop case of the vice president of Hermès integrating all the collaborators to sell fakes a few years ago.”

  The second situation is that the brand official is shoddy.

Zhou Ting said that due to the booming sales, luxury brands are in a hurry to find suppliers when the supply is in short supply. At this time, the materials and craftsmanship of the products are often very different from the genuine products, the products do not match the signs, and even the quality of the products is not as good as the fake ones. , This kind of "drinking poison to quench thirst" has happened before.

  The third situation is that dealers sell fake products on a large scale. "One standard and multiple products are the usual tricks of dealers. The brand only gives the dealer one product, but the dealer can sell 10 products, and the dealer sells fake products. It’s a common phenomenon. Brand staff often turn a blind eye based on interest.”

  Question 2: Why was it sentenced to "fake one loses three"?

  In our daily life, we often hear about two compensation methods: "Fake one pays three" and "Fake one pays ten".

The same is to buy "fake goods", why is the compensation method different?

According to the Beijing News Shell Finance reporter, ten times the compensation is usually applicable to the field of food safety, and three times the compensation is applicable to the case where the operator has defrauded its goods or services.

  According to the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, if a business operator commits fraudulent acts in providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer according to the requirements of the consumer. Three times the price of the consumer's purchase of goods or the cost of receiving services; if the amount of increased compensation is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan.

Therefore, the Court of Furong District, Changsha City, Hunan Province ruled in the first instance that the Louis Vuitton counter refunded Ms. Luo 18,700 yuan for the goods and compensated for three times the amount of 56,100 yuan.

  Question 3: What is the relationship between the LV counter involved in the case and the loss of the case?

  The Beijing News Shell Finance reporter noticed in the judgment document that the People's Court of Furong District, Changsha City, Hunan Province believed that the LV counter involved in the case did not submit corresponding evidence to prove it, and should bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.

  In this civil dispute, what is the relationship between the LV counter involved in the case and the failure to provide evidence?

Miao Huimin, a lawyer from Beijing Yihe Law Firm, said that the failure of the LV counter involved in the case resulted in the final defeat.

As shown in the judgment document, as an internationally renowned luxury brand, Louis Vuitton should have a clear warehouse entry and exit list and strict management procedures for receiving and selling goods. The court ruled that fraud was suspected.

  Zhang Qihuai, director of Beijing Lanpeng Law Firm, said that whether in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, or the allocation of the burden of proof in the procedure or the rules of court trials, the responsibility for the above-mentioned cases rests with the LV counters involved.

According to domestic and foreign laws, the burden of proof exists in litigation cases.

In this case, there is no problem of inversion of the burden of proof. That is to say, if the plaintiff proves that the LV counter sells counterfeit goods, as the defendant, if the LV counter has an excuse for this, it must show evidence. .

  Zhang Qihuai believes that in the above case, there may be three reasons why the LV counter involved did not provide evidence.

The first is that the fake bags are indeed sold, so there is no proof; the second is that there is evidence to prove that the bags sold are genuine, but the LV counters involved in the case cannot obtain them. Remedy, according to the law, the LV counter involved in the case can apply to the court, lawyer or appraisal department to retrieve it, but the LV counter involved did not submit this application; the third is that the original package sold by the LV counter involved in the case is genuine, but due to the current situation If the real package is gone, there is the possibility of objective evidence of loss. In this case, the LV store involved in the case can also provide relevant evidence, but it still does not.

Judging from the above-mentioned possibilities, it is inevitable that the LV counters involved will lose the case.

  Beijing News Shell Finance reporter Yu Menger Wang Zhenzhen

Keywords: