Pilgrim's Pyrrhic victory?

"I bought it in China - I had no idea it was a copy". Can a company these days pass the buck to their Chinese supplier, or should they not at least ask the question? This seems to have been the issue in Pilgrim A/S v Dansk Smykkekunst A/S (Maritime and Commercial Court, August 17 2010, Case V-6-09), reported by Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen of Norsker & Co in the ever-helpful International Law Office newsletter.
Pilgrim sued on the basis of a men's necklace. They failed to cross the copyright threshold, and Denmark's usually-reliable Marketing Practices Act let them down because they did not establish Danish sales, apparently. However, subsistence and infringement of Unregistered Community Design right were found. A good result? Alas, no. The Court held that Pilgrim should have no damages or compensation because "the Court is not satisfied that Dansk Smykkekunst has known or should have known Pilgrim's necklace" and, indeed, they made Pilgrim pay Dansk's costs.
Somehow, it seems wrong to us that the proprietor, after infringement has been shown, has to pay the infringer's costs because the infringer did not determine that the goods were infringements. On the one hand, of course, it is generally better to chase the copyist and manufacturer rather than the retailer. But on the other, that is far from easy when they are located abroad - and they know it. So we think it is just a bit too easy these days to play the innocent or ignorant importer. Is there anyone out there who is unaware that fakes can be bought in the Far East? We doubt it.
But what do you think?

Community Designs - consultation on "innocence"

You infringe a design, by selling product you bought from someone else, without knowledge that the design was protected. Should you pay?
That was the issue in J Choo (Jersey) Ltd v Towerstone Limited and Others [2008] EWHC 346(Ch), concerning counterfeit handbags. There is an "innocence" defence in the UK for most forms of IP infringement (copyright, registered and unregistered UK designs and patents), exempting the infringer from damages (though not other remedies) where he did not know and had no reasonable grounds to suppose that the rights existed, but the Court found none for Community designs. The IPO are consulting as to whether to add such a defence for Community designs, and a response is due by the end of September.
Obviously, it makes matters easier if like measures have like remedies. In the case of a Registered Community Design, where there is no mental element, I tend to think that there should be the same "innocence" defence as for other UK rights.
However, for an unregistered Community Design, where copying must have taken place, I don't see why there should be any innocence defence: someone, somewhere, was far from innocent, and caused damage to the proprietor. If the seller was innocent, they can contractually recoup from their supplier and so back the chain to the infringer. The life of the right is so short, at three years, that by the time an infringer has been found and put on notice, much of the life of the design has evaporated. Thus, I can see arguments against in the case of UCD.