Study On The Obligations Of Business Operators To Warrant Against Intellectual Property Defects

The seller of a sales contract has the primary obligation to deliver a defect-free subject matter,and requires that there are no defects of quality or defects of right in the subject matter delivered.However,the current Consumer Rights Protection Law primarily focuses on the "quality" of goods and services as the main connecting point,placing excessive emphasis on physical defects while neglecting the consideration of defects in rights,particularly intellectual property rights defects.This neglect compromises the protection of consumer rights.When consumers encounter counterfeit goods,if the goods are "fake and inferior," they can be remedied under the defect guarantee system for physical defects.However,if the goods are "fake but not inferior" or even "better than the genuine," there is no physical defect or it is difficult to determine if there is a physical defect.In such cases,the consumer’s rights protection is often obstructed in the absence of fraud.Especially in the current rapidly developing digital consumption era,in the field of consumer protection for digital content products,most digital content belongs to the object of intellectual property rights(especially copyright).Therefore,the guarantee of intellectual property defects is particularly important.However,there is currently a lack of corresponding specific provisions in China’s Consumer Rights Protection Law.To alleviate the abovementioned dilemma,under the current framework of Chinese laws,the general norms of the guarantee system for defects in rights in the Civil Code can only be used as the basis to improve and introduce them into the field of consumer protection laws,thereby strengthening the protection of consumer rights.China’s Civil Code has not established an independent guarantee system for intellectual property defects,and the general provisions on the guarantee of defects in rights are too simple,often leading to confusion in the application of the law.Overall,the current regulations are insufficient in defining the rules for defects in rights,specifying the obligations of intellectual property defect guarantees,detailing the constituent elements of the responsibility for intellectual property defect guarantees,and being clear enough about the specific undertakings for intellectual property defect obligations.To address the above-mentioned consumer rights protection dilemma,this article proposes to clarify the key points of the guarantee system for defects in rights in the Civil Code,improve China’s intellectual property defect guarantee system,and introduce it into the field of consumer protection laws,providing a more clear institutional basis for protecting consumers’ legitimate rights and interests.Specifically,this thesis will be elaborated from the following aspects:The first part,the introduction,mainly includes three aspects: the problem statement,literature review,research methods.This part summarizes the research status of the defect guarantee system(including the defect guarantee system for physical defects and defects in rights)and combines it with issues related to the Consumer Rights Protection Law.It analyzes the deficiencies of the current Consumer Rights Protection Law in regulating fake products and digital content product consumption and proposes specific measures to refine and improve the relevant provisions of the guarantee obligations of intellectual property defects in the Civil Code and apply them to the field of consumer protection.The second part mainly explains the basic theory of the obligation of intellectual property defect guarantees.It reviews the origin and development of the guarantee system for defects in rights,studies the legislative practices of various countries,and investigates the current status of the guarantee system for defects in rights in Chinese law,pointing out its inadequacies.Meanwhile,on this basis,the system function and practical value of the guarantee of defects in intellectual property are introduced.In addition,this part also explores the connotation and specific situations of intellectual property defects,as well as the legal nature of the obligation of intellectual property defect guarantees.The third part mainly clarifies the legal elements of the "obligation of intellectual property defect guarantees of operators",including subjects,objects,and contents.Firstly,it clarifies the subject and treatment of the obligation,so as to identify who is responsible for and to whom the obligation is responsible;Secondly,a typological analysis of the object of payment of intellectual property defect guarantee obligations is conducted to clarify the specific manifestations of intellectual property defects in each object.Finally,the specific contents of the intellectual property defect guarantee obligations are analyzed,which highlights that this obligation is a group of obligations that runs through the entire consumer contract.In addition to the obligation of delivering items without defects,it also involves obligations,such as the diligence obligation of intellectual property defects,the obligation of informing consumers of intellectual property defects,the obligation of proving intellectual property defects,and the obligation of assisting consumers in exercising their rights.The specific explanation of these obligations will help guide operators to better fulfill their defect guarantee obligations.The fourth part mainly clarifies the legal responsibilities that operators should bear when they fail to perform their obligations of intellectual property defect guarantees properly.Firstly,the constituent elements of the responsibility for intellectual property defects guarantees and the reasons for exemption are improved,especially the analysis of whether consumers are exempted from liability for fake purchases.Secondly,this part explores the specific ways in which operators bear defect responsibilities,especially the application order of the various responsibilities under general breach of contract liability,and the relationship between punitive damages and the responsibility for defect performance.It attempts to clarify the specific details of how operators bear intellectual property defect responsibilities in order to resolve confusion in the application of the law.