On July 20, 2024, the plaintiff purchased a branded fountain pen from an online store operated by the defendant's company for 5500 yuan. After receiving the goods, the plaintiff dipped the pen tip in ink for trial use and found that the thickness of the pen tip did not meet the requirements. On July 24th, the plaintiff applied for a seven day no reason return, but was rejected. The plaintiff believes that the defendant's refusal to return the goods without reason for seven days constitutes fraud, and has sued the defendant to the court, demanding a refund and triple compensation. The defendant, a certain company, claimed that the promotional page of the involved product was labeled as "Product should be tested with clean water", and the plaintiff had already dipped the pen in ink for testing, which had an impact on the capillary function of the pen. Returning the pen would affect secondary sales, and it was a common practice in the industry that pens dipped in ink for testing could not be returned. Therefore, the defendant refused the plaintiff's return request and requested the court to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit. [Court Trial] The court held that in this case, the defendant claimed that the transaction snapshot of the involved goods had already stated that upon receiving the goods, they immediately dipped them in clean water for trial writing, and after confirming their accuracy, added ink for use. As for the trial writing with ink, returns and exchanges are not supported. However, based on the product details and prompt font, this prompt is located at the bottom of the page details and does not use prominent fonts or colors. It also does not have a prominent confirmation program set up in the necessary process of consumer single purchase behavior, and customer service does not separately prompt the product to be dipped in water for trial writing during the sales process. Therefore, this prompt does not constitute a prominent prompt. As a writing tool, it is a reasonable behavior to use a pen dipped in ink after purchase to confirm the quality of the product. Dip in ink test is different from ink test. Ink test may result in difficult to clean marks inside the pen, or damage to the pen by clogging the capillary structure. In this case, the plaintiff only dipped in ink to write a few words and cleaned the pen tip of the product after the trial. This trial behavior will not cause significant devaluation of the value of the involved product, nor will it affect secondary sales. 【 Judgment Result 】 The court ruled that the defendant shall refund the payment to the plaintiff, and at the same time, the plaintiff shall return the goods involved to the defendant, and the reasonable freight incurred shall be borne by the defendant. At present, the verdict of the case has come into effect. According to the case, if a merchant fails to prominently label products that are not eligible for the "seven day no reason return" rule and does not establish a significant confirmation process in the sales process, the merchant shall not refuse the consumer's return request. This case balances the obligation of operators to inform and the obligation of consumers to pay attention, guiding the construction of a healthy online transaction order of "operators fully informing - consumers rationally consuming - both parties fulfilling their obligations with good faith", which helps to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. Operators should prominently display important information such as usage instructions and precautions on the product promotion page using prominent fonts, colors, etc. Special products or situations that are not eligible for the "seven day no reason return" policy should be prominently displayed. Consumers should actively check the product parameters and details when placing orders for valuable or special goods, and consult through online customer service and other channels if necessary. After receiving the product, one should try it out reasonably according to the product description or merchant's instructions, in order to avoid the devaluation of the product value or the impact on secondary sales due to improper use. Finally, it is not allowed to abuse the return rules for product testing. For products that have obvious signs of use or reduced value, the return rules may not apply. (outlook new era)