Swarovski's move is not against "counterfeits", but an opportunity to pressure its distributors. This is similar to Tissot's previous exclusion of Dangdang from selling its products online. The fundamental reason is that online channels have infringed upon the commercial interests of traditional brand manufacturers. Dissatisfied with online channels disrupting their pricing system, Swarovski has clashed with many e-commerce companies, including JD.com.
Recently, Swarovski (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Swarovski") stated, "So far, the company has not authorized any website in China to sell Swarovski products." It also mentioned that for all infringing or illegal sales of Swarovski products online, it would consider taking appropriate legal actions.
Relevant Swarovski officials also stated that Swarovski's product warranty in China only applies to products purchased in physical stores and accompanied by a warranty card and receipt. This means that Swarovski products purchased online cannot enjoy warranty services in physical stores.
However, Swarovski's statement did not cause much of a stir among e-commerce companies. According to incomplete statistics, currently mainstream domestic e-commerce platforms such as JD.com, Taobao, Dangdang, Amazon, Yihao Store, and Xiu.com are all discounting Swarovski's related products. For example, on JD.com, there are 831 search results for "Swarovski."
Regarding Swarovski's accusations, JD.com appeared quite "aggrieved." Yesterday, the company responded in a statement sent to The First Financial Daily (Weibo) stating: "The 'Swarovski' and 'Swarovski Elements' brand products sold on JD.com all come from legitimate channels. Suppliers and brand manufacturers all possess legal qualifications, and the product procedures are complete with official commercial invoices."
However, JD.com also expressed: "Since the prices of products sold on JD.com are lower than those of brand manufacturers, we are actively communicating with brand manufacturers, hoping to establish a friendly cooperative relationship with them."
Like Swarovski, many large brands have encountered similar troubles in online channels.
Previously, Dangdang caused dissatisfaction among Tissot China due to a 7.5% discount sale of Tissot watches for Father's Day. Tissot China issued a statement saying that the brand had not authorized Dangdang to sell its products, and neither Tissot China nor its authorized service centers in China would provide any warranty services for products sold by Dangdang.
Even earlier, Casio China officially claimed that it only granted four online merchants—GAC International, Orient CJ, CASIO AUSUN specialty store on Taobao Mall, and Suning Easy Purchase—the right to distribute watches in mainland China, excluding Dangdang, Joyo, and JD.com. Consumers purchasing non-Casio authorized watch products, regardless of authenticity, will not receive any after-sales services from Casio, nor will Casio authenticate watches purchased through non-official channels.
In recent years, UGG snow boots have become popular in the market. Staff at UGG AUSTRALIA's authorized specialty stores in China once stated that UGG does not currently engage in e-commerce sales in China, having only one English-language official website from the U.S. However, numerous merchants online claim to sell snow boots under the UGG name.
To this day, Dangdang continues to sell a significant number of Tissot watches, Casio watches are still available on major domestic e-commerce platforms, and UGG snow boots remain popular online. These "unauthorized" e-commerce channels not only guarantee that the products they sell are genuine and eligible for national joint warranty but also promise to handle after-sales services related to these products within the scope of legal regulations in conjunction with relevant suppliers.
For Swarovski and many other brand manufacturers, industry insiders generally believe that the dispute is not the fault of e-commerce platforms like JD.com, but rather a conflict between brand manufacturers and their agents.
Zhao Zhanling, Chief Legal Advisor of China Network Law Network, told reporters that if JD.com, Dangdang, Tmall (Weibo), and other e-commerce platforms only sell unauthorized goods and the goods themselves are not counterfeit, then it does not constitute trademark infringement. Moreover, if the goods do not infringe copyright (brand advertising copy and pictures), brand manufacturers have no legal basis to hold e-commerce companies accountable.
In Li Chengdong's view, an e-commerce analyst at Paipai.com, Swarovski's move is not targeting "counterfeits," but an opportunity to pressure dealers. "This is similar to Tissot's previous rejection of Dangdang selling its products online. The fundamental reason is that online channels infringe upon the business interests of traditional brand manufacturers. Traditional manufacturers generally implement regional and channel-based sales price control strategies to ensure profits and the interests of traditional channel operators."
Li Chengdong calculated for the reporter that goods sold through traditional retail channels, after deducting wholesalers' and retailers' rebates, and further subtracting the costs of electricity, water, rent, inventory, and labor for physical stores, cost at least 20%~30% more than on e-commerce platforms, making it impossible for prices to drop. "Whether online or offline, brand manufacturers have a guiding price, but the pricing authority should be who operates, who sets the price. If the price can be set and sold, it indicates that merchants can bear this cost. As for how to balance the price system between online and offline, it mainly depends on how the brand manufacturer chooses to balance."
Zhao Zhanling believes that if responsibility is to be pursued, it should be the brand manufacturer pursuing the agent's responsibility. "Brand manufacturers usually have relevant cooperation agreements with agents, restricting sales channels. The supply channels for e-commerce platforms come from Swarovski's agents. If Swarovski strictly prohibits dealers from supplying to online channels, then it is the dealers themselves breaching the contract. For Swarovski, it can only strengthen channel management while pursuing the legal responsibility of defaulting channel operators." (Liu Jia)