As the Chinese New Year approaches, people start shopping in malls and rushing to gather and buy New Year's goods. In order to seize the peak sales season, businesses use various marketing and promotional methods to attract consumers, such as buying gifts, discounts, and other advertisements that are overwhelming. However, consumers must also beware of the "sweet trap" while making purchases. On the eve of the Spring Festival, Wang bought 2 cases of Baijiu of a brand, 12 bottles in total, in a trading company, and paid 1260 yuan for the goods. After Wang received the goods, his friend observed the appearance and found that the color was different from the one he had bought before, and raised doubts on the spot. Wang reported to the Market Supervision Administration that he requested an on-site verification, and both the law enforcement personnel's on-site verification and the distillery's appraisal confirmed that it was fake wine. Wang believed that the trading company was selling counterfeit goods and requested a return and refund, as well as ten times compensation. However, he was refused and filed a lawsuit with the court. After hearing the case, the court held that, according to the product identification certificate issued by the distillery, the products sold by the trading company were not Baijiu of the brand, but counterfeit products infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the brand. The trading company failed to prove that the products meet the quality standards and the legal source of purchase. Therefore, the Baijiu involved in the case should be identified as food of unknown origin. As a food operator, the trading company did not purchase goods from formal and legal channels. In the case of selling counterfeit registered trademarks involving alcoholic beverages, it failed to provide evidence to prove that it inspected the source and relevant supporting documents before selling, nor did it provide evidence to prove that it had fulfilled the seller's duty of prudence. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Wang's lawsuit request. Judges often offer wine as a gift when visiting relatives and friends during the upcoming Chinese New Year. In recent years, the practice of selling counterfeit alcohol through means such as "hitchhiking" and "riding on famous brands" has been repeatedly banned. Unscrupulous merchants, in order to increase sales and make huge profits, label bulk and low-priced liquor with famous liquor labels and sell them at the price of famous liquor. This not only violates consumers' right to know, but also infringes on the trademark rights of famous liquor, seriously disrupting the order of the market economy. Moreover, in order to reduce production and operation costs, enhance the flavor and characteristics of alcoholic beverages, producers excessively use additives, plasticizers, or alcohol blending, directly endangering the lives and health of consumers. The food produced or sold by producers and sellers shall comply with food safety standards. Article 34 of China's Food Safety Law stipulates that the production and operation of the following foods, food additives, and food related products are prohibited: foods produced from non food raw materials or foods with chemical substances other than food additives and other substances that may harm human health, or foods produced from recycled foods as raw materials; Food that exceeds the scope or limit of use of food additives, as well as other food, food additives, and food related products that do not comply with laws, regulations, or food safety standards. Article 57 of the Trademark Law stipulates that any of the following acts shall constitute infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark: using a trademark identical to the registered trademark on the same goods without the permission of the trademark registrant; Changing the registered trademark without the consent of the trademark registrant and putting the goods with the changed trademark back on the market. If consumers find that excessive food additives or industrial alcohol blending do not meet food safety standards when purchasing alcoholic beverages, they may, in accordance with Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, demand compensation for losses from the operator or producer if they suffer damage due to food that does not meet food safety standards. If a consumer produces food that does not meet food safety standards or knowingly operates food that does not meet food safety standards, in addition to demanding compensation for losses, they may also demand compensation of ten times the price or three times the loss from the producer or operator; If the increase in compensation amount is less than 1000 yuan, it shall be 1000 yuan. If the producer can prove that the liquor itself complies with the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law, or the seller can prove that the liquor itself has a legal source and complies with the provisions of the Food Safety Law, and only sells it under the famous liquor trademark or logo, it constitutes infringement of trademark rights or unfair competition. However, if the producer or seller uses a registered trademark to mislead consumers and purchase counterfeit products, consumers may, in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, that is, if the operator engages in fraudulent behavior in providing goods or services, they shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer at their request, and the amount of compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased or the cost of the services received by the consumer; If the increase in compensation amount is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan. Suspected of price fraud: During a Spring Festival promotion at a supermarket, Liang purchased a bottle of edible blended oil at a unit price of 55.9 yuan per bottle, offering a discount of 6.9 yuan, but actually paid 49 yuan. Later Liang discovered that the supermarket had sold edible oil for 46.9 yuan per bottle in the week before this promotion, so he complained to the Market Supervision Administration. After verification, the Market Supervision Administration has issued a penalty decision on the supermarket, determining that the behavior of the supermarket "rising first and then falling" constitutes price fraud, which constitutes the illegal price behavior referred to in Article 14 (4) of the Price Law of "using false or misleading price means to deceive consumers or other operators into trading with them". Liang's request for the supermarket to refund the price difference and provide 500 yuan in compensation was rejected and he filed a lawsuit with the court. The court held that Article 41 of the Price Law stipulates that if an operator causes consumers or other operators to overpay due to illegal pricing behavior, the overpaid amount shall be refunded; Those who cause damage shall be liable for compensation in accordance with the law. The final judgment is that the supermarket should compensate Liang with 500 yuan. The judge explained that during festivals and holidays, many supermarkets and e-commerce platforms will carry out promotional activities, which may contain some sales traps. Many products have a situation of "first rising and then falling" in price, with some even raising prices by hundreds of yuan overnight, resulting in higher prices after full discounts compared to before the event. In response to promotional chaos such as merchants raising prices first and then lowering prices, the State Administration for Market Regulation has issued the "Interim Provisions on Regulating Promotional Behavior", which clarifies that when operators discount or lower prices, they should indicate or indicate the benchmark for discount or price reduction through other convenient ways for consumers to understand. If no benchmark is specified or indicated, the discount or price reduction shall be based on the lowest transaction price of the same operator in the same business premises within seven days before this promotional activity. If there is no transaction within the first seven days, the discount or price reduction shall be based on the last transaction price before this promotional activity. According to Article 19 of the "Regulations on Clear Pricing and Prohibition of Price Fraud" issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, operators shall not engage in the following price fraud behaviors: falsely claiming that the prices of goods and services are government set or government guided prices; Deceiving consumers or other operators with low prices and settling at high prices; Selling goods or providing services through false discounts, price reductions, or price comparisons. Without reasonable reasons, operators are not allowed to temporarily significantly increase the marked price before discounts or price reductions, and use it as a basis for calculating discounts or price reductions. Otherwise, according to the above regulations, it will be considered as price fraud. If consumers discover that merchants engage in price fraud by raising prices first and then lowering them, they can file a complaint and report to the government's price regulatory department. In addition, consumers can also claim punitive damages from operators in accordance with Article 55 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The exaggerated promotion of "divine therapeutic effect" health products should not be easily believed. When Xing saw it, the TV shopping advertisement claimed that the "certain biological thymosin" produced by Company A has the effects of reshaping and comprehensively enhancing immunity, preventing and treating various diseases, etc. So he paid 11040 yuan for the purchase. After receiving the goods, Xing took the "certain biological thymosin" involved in the case according to the TV advertisement and customer service introduction. During the medication period, Xing was hospitalized twice due to illness, and both himself and his family were infected with infectious diseases. Xing later learned that the true attribute of the "certain biological thymosin" involved in the case was "compressed candy", which was only an ordinary food and had no medicinal or health food effects. Xing sued to the court, demanding that Company A compensate him tenfold for his losses. After the court's trial, it was found that Company A's TV advertisement exaggerated the promotion and induced consumers to make purchases, which constituted fraud. Therefore, the payment should be refunded and compensation should be tripled. Due to the fact that manufacturer B provided a product inspection report that meets the requirements of food production safety, and Xing did not prove that he caused damage by taking the health product, the existing evidence is insufficient to determine that "certain biological thymosin" does not comply with the Food Safety Law. Therefore, the ten fold compensation claimed by Xing is not supported. Judges' lectures on health and wellness have become a trend for giving gifts during the Chinese New Year. Many consumers choose various health products as gifts to show respect to the elderly and visit relatives and friends. But consumers must consume rationally when buying health food to avoid being deceived. According to Article 2 of the "Measures for the Administration of Health Food" implemented by the health administrative department of the State Council, health food refers to food that indicates specific health functions. Food that is suitable for specific populations to consume, has the ability to regulate bodily functions, and is not intended for the purpose of treating diseases. Article 4, Paragraph 4 stipulates that the labels, instructions, and advertisements of health food shall not promote their therapeutic effects. Therefore, the labels, instructions, and advertising content of health food must be truthful and must not contain false or exaggerated information, nor imply disease prevention or treatment functions. In addition to the consumer traps of exaggeration and false advertising, there are also hidden dangers to food safety in the health product market. Some health products that are advertised as having "miraculous therapeutic effects" may contain excessive harmful additives or drug ingredients, which do not meet food safety standards. In this case, according to Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, consumers can claim ten times compensation from producers or operators. (New Press) (Author affiliation: Chaoyang District People's Court, Beijing)