Research on the Rules of Professional Anti-Counterfeiting Behavior in the Field of Consumption

Authors

  • Bing Bai The Sixth Procuratorial Department, The Primary People's Procuratorate of Huairou District of Beijing Municipality, Beijing 101400, China
  • Ruiqi Wang The Sixth Procuratorial Department, The Primary People's Procuratorate of Huairou District of Beijing Municipality, Beijing 101400, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/yqst6s37

Keywords:

Professional Anti-counterfeiters, Legal Regulation, Punitive Damages

Abstract

Focused on the legal status of professional anti-counterfeiters in the field of consumption and the application of punitive damages system, the problems and disputes about professional anti-counterfeiters' behavior in theory and practice at present are systematically summarized and analyzed, the characteristics of professional anti-counterfeiting behavior are deeply analyzed from the legal basis, amount and means of claim, and effective guidance and regulation strategies for professional anti-counterfeiters' behavior in the field of consumption are tried to be put forward from three dimensions: civil disputes, administrative violations and criminal offences in this paper.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Yin, H. Q. (2018). Research on the legal regulation of anti-counterfeiting practices in the food industry. Food Science, 39(9), 341–346.

[2] Wu, P. (2022). Governance path of complaints and reports by food safety whistleblowers. Administrative Management Reform, (5), 48–54.

[3] Zhou, J. (2018). Substantive examination of the legitimacy of consumer rights protection behavior from the perspective of criminal law. Northern Law Science, 12(5), 79–89.

[4] (No author). (2018). Purchasing counterfeits knowing they are fake and multiple compensation: Legal interpretation, function, and value orientation. People's Justice (Application), (19), 103–111.

[5] Tang, H. Y. (2021). The application of punitive damages clauses to knowingly buying counterfeit goods is not a form of overprotection. Rule of Law and Society, 9(1), 18–19.

[6] Su, M. H., & Wang, Y. J. (2020). New countermeasures and new reflections on standardizing occupational claims issues in Shanghai—Taking Opinions on Responding to Occupational Claims and Occupational Reports and Exemption List as examples. Journal of Shanghai Business School, 21(1), 44–53.

[7] Zhu, B. (2010). Exploration of punitive compensation liability in the Food Safety Law. Medicine and Philosophy (Humanities and Social Medicine Edition), 31(2), 55–57.

[8] Xu, X. (2004). Private enforcement of law. Legal Studies, (1), 18–29.

[9] Friedman, D. D. (2004). The machinery of freedom: Guide to a radical capitalism (Trans.). Law Press.

[10] Stigler, G. J., & Zhou, Z. F. (1992). The optimal conditions for law enforcement. Global Law Review, (2), 41–45.

[11] Wen, D. M. (2004). On the non-contradiction between the public welfare and profitability of private education. Peking University Education Review, (1), 43–48.

Downloads

Published

21-09-2026

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 3 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.