The individual entrepreneur demanded compensation for violation of the rights to his trademarks.
As the plaintiff pointed out, in the framework of another case, he found out that the defendant had purchased a large batch of counterfeit goods from the violating company.

The Intellectual Property Court found the claims unfounded.

The plaintiff insisted that the defendant's acquisition of a large amount of counterfeit goods was clearly connected with the introduction of such goods into circulation, which is a violation of the exclusive rights of an individual entrepreneur.
 
Meanwhile, the entrepreneur did not provide evidence confirming the fact that the defendant unlawfully distributed counterfeit goods in a retail network.

Such actions as the acquisition of products in which a trademark is expressed, regardless of the purpose, as well as its storage or transportation without the purpose of introducing it into civil circulation, do not violate the exclusive right.

Taking this into account, the acquisition of products bearing an illegally affixed trademark, does not in itself constitute a civil offense.