Point of law: whether the seller of a magazine, in which an object of intellectual property right (specifically, a photo) was placed may be held liable for it?

Alternative attitudes: 1) he is not liable, because the selling of magazines is a common way of their dissemination and, as a rule, it does not imply a special check as to whether or not IP rights of third persons were violated when preparing and printing the magazines; or 2) he may be held liable, because, when engaging in entrepreneurial activity in the form of selling magazines which might contain the objects of IP rights of third persons, the seller must ascertain that the rights have not been breached; or 3) since the activity of the seller is entrepreneurial one and therefore should be effectuated with due regard to its inherent risks and possible negative consequences, he may be held liable for the violation of IP rights even in the absence of his fault. 

Ratio decidendi: the third approach is legally correct. At the same time, the Presidium pointed out that the amount of seller’s liability must be minimal due to the opportunity, which the plaintiff had, to bring to responsibility the issuer of the periodical.

Practical consequences: the Judgment says that prior court decisions in analogous cases if inconsistent with this interpretation may be reversed in the procedure and within the limits envisaged by Art 311 of the Commercial Procedure Code.