The “521 VIA Carnival” is in full swing, however, the “queen of live-streaming” who created the festival has recently been involved in a scandal of selling fake products. However, the “queen of live-streaming” has recently been caught in a scandal of selling fake products.
On the night of May 14, a 198 yuan “tide brand Supreme and the Chinese brand GUZI joint-name small fan hanging neck” sold by VIA live. The next day, the fashion blogger Abestyle exposed as copycat goods. According to Abestyle, “GUZI is a very unknown small domestic brand, and the genuine Supreme has never done co-branding with any domestic brands, and will not be sold for 198 (yuan) “.
According to press inquiries, GUZI GUZI belongs to the Foshan Shunde Eno Network Technology Co., Ltd.’s own brand, founded in 2014, as of press time, GUZI official microblogging fans only 92.
After the incident fermented, Veya responded to the matter in the live broadcast, she said it was her misunderstanding of the co-branding of this product, and gave a refund not to return the solution. Veya did not admit to selling counterfeits and did not express an apology. But at that time the other party involved GUZI GUZI has issued an apology statement through the official microblogging, and took down the co-branded model hanging neck fan.
Is Veya wrong? The “Supreme co-branded model” goods sold in her live room are not copycat goods or not? The reporter looked through the live replay of the 14th night of VIA’s live broadcast and found that the product had been removed from the replayable explanation clip.
On the surface, it seems that the head anchor is under the spell of selling fake bird’s nest, Luo Yonghao sells fake woolen sweaters, and now VIA sells fake cottage goods.
What is Vaea’s fault?
Accused of selling cottage goods, the lead anchor and the brand can be seen as grasshoppers on a rope, but afterwards, the response of Veya’s team and the co-branded party Guzi was completely different.
In chronological order, after the co-branded fan was picked up by fashion bloggers on the 15th as a copycat, Guzi responded to the matter earlier than VIA on the evening of the 17th, issuing an apology statement through its official microblog, saying it had taken down the co-branded neck fan and that consumers who bought the product “can apply for a full refund and Consumers who purchased the product “can apply for a full refund and do not need to return the product”.
At the same time, Guzi said, “Immediately terminate the cooperation with the Supreme brand in China, and reserve the right to pursue legal responsibility. “
From the apology statement, it appears that Guzi obtained authorization from the so-called “Supreme brand in China” and entered into a co-branding partnership, which, prior to signing with Guzi The latter “provided a series of U.S. brand licensing documents and a number of brand co-branding cases”. After the fan sale was questioned by netizens, Guzi immediately contacted the “Supreme brand in China” and asked to verify this trademark authorization information again, but The other side did not actively cooperate to provide more proof.
Guzi explained that “after being reminded by netizens, we learned that there are multiple Supreme brands in the U.S.”, and that for this licensing cooperation “promptly paid the costs associated with brand licensing and co-branding collaborations, which are unusually expensive for a startup.”
After Guzi’s response, Vaia also responded that night in a live stream, which was a relative understatement.
She said during the live broadcast, “I now think that co-branding is a bit controversial, I contacted this merchant and also Tmall International because it was recommended to me by the official Tmall International junior at the time. It is indeed that American Supreme co-branded, but with my understanding of Supreme may not be a, in legal terms may not be a problem, but from my own point of view, not I want to sell Supreme, I think this thing should not happen to me, so I now hope that the merchant can be a full refund to all those who bought it, no returns. “
According to fashion blogger Abestyle’s follow-up information, the operating party behind the “cottage co-branding” is The reason is two, the website is not right, and the founder information does not match.
According to the SkyEye APP, the company has registered “SupremeChina official microblog” and a website called According to the app, the company has registered “SupremeChina official Weibo” and a record website named “Supremeusa.com”.
The reporter clicked on this website and found that as of now, the website still shows a number of Supreme peripheral co-branded products, including Datang Bujinkan, KSM diapers, Sparkling liqueur, KAX soda, TVT e-cigarettes and NRN masks, as well as the Supreme x GUZI co-brand that VIA is selling this time.
The website is packaged inside and out to look like the official Supreme website, but the official URL of the genuine Supreme is Supremenewyork.com, not Supremeusa.com.
In addition, the U.S. company licensed to “Sichuan Speedy Brand Management Co.” on the record website is Supreme Brand Management Group Supreme Brand Management Group”, the founder is called WEN-JIANG SHIEN, not The founder is WEN-JIANG SHIEN, not the famous Supreme founder James Jebbia.
In fact, the company that owns the rights to Supreme is VF Corporation. This company is the parent company of brands such as the North Face (North Face) and Vans, and has acquired the hip brand Supreme for over $2.1 billion in November 2020.
There are two other pieces of suspicious information worth noting: firstly, the Sichuan Speedy Brand Management Company, which was listed by the Chenghua Market Supervision Administration in April this year as an abnormal business, and secondly, the ultimate beneficiary of the Sichuan Speedy Brand Management Company is Xie Yixin, whose 100%-owned company, Guangdong Zhongguang Development Pharmaceutical Company Limited, is applying for at least eight Supreme Ltd. is applying for at least eight Supreme-related trademarks.
To sum up, Beijing to the Pu law firm Li Sheng lawyer through the current evidence situation to judge, VIA sold goods is not Guzi and the United States Supreme co-branded models, nor is Guzi GUZI and Supreme Italia co-branded models, but VIA and its staff that night in the live room repeatedly stressed that the goods are explosive, claiming that it is the United States co-branded, non-Hong Kong agent, it is easy for Consumers make it confused with the U.S. Supreme brand in New York, which constitutes misleading to consumers and should belong to the co-branded cottage counterfeit.
This is to mention an episode, most people understand Supreme is Jame Jebbie in 1994 founded in the United States in New York, the well-known tide brand Supreme, which is also the selling point of the goods sold by VIA. But there have been a lot of “Supreme impersonations,” partly because the International Brand Firm (IBF) International Brand Firm (IBF) had registered Supreme Italia and other related trademarks in Italy before Supreme in the United States around 2011, and because of the legal trademark and brand identity shelter, once in the world unscrupulously “legal The “joint name”, even the international brand Samsung have been “pit”.
Selling 6.54 million, should VIA be held responsible?
Controversy about the real and fake Supreme brand has been ongoing, Supreme America has been defending its rights worldwide for many years, but because of this, the whole thing happened to top stream anchor Vea, which seems a bit outrageous, and in her own words, “it shouldn’t happen to me “.
In the opinion of Wang Sheng, a partner of Enoch Angel Fund, it is less likely that the head big anchor has a subjective problem, and more likely that Veya’s selection team is not professional enough to understand tide brands.
Although Supreme is very famous in the tide brand circle, but the pace of entering the Chinese market is very slow, which gives the “plum” Supreme the opportunity to take advantage of. If a company has its own domestic trademark, it is very bluff. He recalled to the reporter that he had received “Supreme’s financing BP”. It was “shocking” because the logo was almost identical to the real Supreme, hard to distinguish from the real one, and the company had registered trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights in the country.
In other words, the matter exposed the unprofessionalism of VIA’s product selection team. “Veya, as a big influential anchor, built a huge selection team, not only couldn’t figure out the ‘Li Kui’ and ‘Li Ghost’ Supreme, the ability and professionalism to control all aspects of their own selection is not yet in place, and apparently also does not have the ability to make direct contact with Supreme’s U.S. officials. “Wang Sheng analysis.
No matter how much the plum is like the plum kui, it is still a plum. So, VIA sells the “plum” Supreme to people who want to buy The “Li Kui” Supreme consumers, so that the sales of the goods soared, VIA should be responsible?
According to the third-party platform zucchini big data shows that the night of the 14th VIA live a total of 53 goods on the shelves, total sales of 100 million yuan, of which this Guzi hanging neck fan Supreme co-branded models “sales of 21,900,000, sales of 654,300,000 yuan.
Li Sheng lawyer from the point of view of legal theory, if VIA belongs to the spokesman of the goods sold, knowing or should know that the advertisement is false, but still make recommendation, proof, should be according to the provisions of Article 56 of the Advertising Law, and the advertiser to bear joint and several civil liability; if VIA, as a well-known anchor, make false or misleading commercial propaganda of the goods, should be subject to administrative punishment; VIA’s anchor behavior belongs to advertising behavior, which may constitute the crime of false advertising.
“The so-called top selection team behind Veya does not understand the tide brand Supreme, which is only one of its exposed problems. “A tide brand related person in charge told reporters that Veya and the team’s response after the fact was also not professional enough.
The head of a platform e-commerce, Bian Xu, described it this way, “Veya’s response in the live broadcast was like a star’s reaction after facing problems with the products they endorse,” the core The core subtext is “It’s not my business.
The core subtext was “it’s not my business.” Veya’s response was clear: the first responsible party was the co-branded party, and the reason she broadcast the product was ‘recommended by Tmall International’s official second. ‘, Tmall platform is the second responsible person, themselves as a sales party is only joint and several responsibility. “Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Professor of e-commerce Cui Lili analysis, in other words, in the view of VIA, the brand side and Tmall International should be the first and second line of defense, while they are the third.
This response in Cui Lili’s view owes a few points of sincerity. “Even if multiple parties are responsible for this matter, a few points of responsibility in the joint party, a few points of responsibility in Tmall International, but the responsibility of the sales anchor is certainly not escaped. “She told reporters that VIA should at least first sincerely apologize, and then explain the original reason for the matter, and help the victimized consumers to fight for the protection of their rights.
Wang Sheng agrees with this view from the perspective of reasoning. “After all, the consumer bought the cottage goods because she trusted her. The relationship between her and the consumer is not simply a commodity recommendation relationship, but actually a trading relationship. “
Regarding the live rollover and post-event response, it is difficult for Veya to avoid being compared with Luo Yonghao. In this regard, Cui Lili said that the reason why Veya’s treatment is not as good as Luo Yonghao, may be she is limited by past honors and recognition of their own from all walks of life, the psychological baggage is heavy, objectively speaking, everyone facing “gutter capsize The reason for this is that she is not as good as Luo.
“For anchors, product quality, the correctness of the brand, whether or not there are fakes, these belong to the red line of zero tolerance and can not be touched, especially in VIA’s position today. “According to Bian Xu, this is what consumers demand of head anchors.
The phrase in Veya’s response, “This stuff shouldn’t happen to me,” is perhaps the true expression of the heart. And Luo Yonghao faced with large and small crises are actively respond and pass through peacefully, in Cui Lili’s opinion, part of the reason is that Luo Yonghao compared to Veya and Li Jiaqi, was originally a novice in the industry, made mistakes to the mentality of a novice in the workplace to frankly apologize and high-profile correction.
Li Sheng also mentioned that top stream anchors like Veya, as a public figure, should take a positive attitude towards the cottage goods incident, otherwise it will not only bring adverse effects to themselves, but also set a bad example to their peers.
Top anchor must turn over?
The first one is Simba selling fake bird’s nest, Luo Yonghao selling fake wool sweaters, and the second one is Veya selling fake Supreme co-branded, one can’t help but wonder, is it inevitable that top anchors will roll over?
More than one person who is concerned about live e-commerce gave the reporter the answer in the affirmative, the rollover is the head anchor can not avoid the probability of events, and the frequent emergence behind the scandal of the sale of fake, but also exposed the live with many loopholes in the goods industry.
On the one hand, the head anchor sells 40-50 different brands of goods every day, equivalent to a large department store, but the industry is developing too fast, and the big anchor cooperation brands are mixed, even the head of the selection team is difficult to cover such a wide range of categories, will inevitably roll over in some areas.
Not only because the professional is not enough, but also because “often walk by the river which has no wet shoes”. “These live selection team is not a professional clothing trade enterprises, for the supply chain selection, the certification of a brand, but also only through the paper documents, in many cases no ability to identify the true or false. “Side Xu claims.
In addition, according to his observation, “when some head anchor traffic gradually become weak, the pit fee is no longer as expensive as before, for some give money to the small and medium-sized brands, even if the judgment of sales is not good, will try to sell a sale, which will inevitably turn over. “
On the other hand, in Wang Sheng’s view, counterfeit goods are difficult to completely avoid in the offline commercial business and online e-commerce business, and now is not a problem that anchors can solve through their own efforts.
At the end of last year, the company behind “Luo Yonghao’s live broadcast of the sale of cottage shoes”, the company The company behind it, “Make a friend”, responded through its official microblogging, “Because the cooperation chain is long, you can’t be 100% sure that one of the partners in the middle The company behind it responded through its official microblogging site, “Because the cooperation chain is long, we can’t be 100% sure whether there is any illegal deception or malicious concealment of facts in the middle of a partner; no enterprise can do it, technically 100% without the problem of fake or copycat goods. “
“In the country, there are a large number of poorly organized agencies and factories, the general environment is such. ” Bian Xu said.
Back to Veya selling cottage Supreme incident, he said, if it is true as Veya said, this commodity is the official Tmall International Xiao Er recommended, then this product selection mechanism, cooperation mode is likely to be different from the general selection of Veya’s team. Maybe Tmall takes the active position, plus the backing of Tmall International, Veya’s selection will not be as strict as in the past, which may lead to similar problems.
According to his analysis, this matter also exposes a serious industry problem – even if strong as VIA’s selection team and professional as domestic head e-commerce platforms, they still can’t accurately judge Supreme’s relevant authorization chain.
Perhaps because of this, May 14, after Veya live sales of this item, did not immediately spark concern. “Multiple parties may be playing a tacit ball, all do not want the matter to ferment. “Side Xu analysis.
But then again, a number of practitioners, including Bian Xu, believe that the sale of fake cottage goods has “zero impact” on VIA. Now Veya compared to other anchors, is equivalent to an aircraft carrier against a fishing boat, even if the fishing boat head-on against the aircraft carrier, Veya also has no loss. “
Bian Xu evaluates Veya’s position as no second team can compare with her, both financially and in terms of resources. “Two years ago, she and Li Jiaqi two people almost equal, but Veya after these two years of continuous out of the circle, and Li Jiaqi is no longer on the same level. “
“Occasionally rollover once or twice, the public can still understand, but the attitude should be sincere. “Cui Lili analysis, if the head anchor’s team does not have a certain amount of accumulation and research in the category they carry, it will inevitably have frequent accidents and affect the credibility. “An anchor to bring a certain category, you need to increase the experts in this area to help the team to improve the ability to select and discriminate. “
*At the request of the interviewee, the text side Xu is a pseudonym.
Recent Comments