Bustos maintained that the injunction was of academic interest only, since he had ceased to use the marks. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, since the fact he had stopped using them didn't mean that there was no chance of him doing so again in the future. Bustos also argued that it was actually he who was the victim: he had acted in good faith and had himself been defrauded by the goods' supplier, on which basis he should not have to pay damages. The Court of Appeals was not impressed, saying:
“it was not credible that the defendant had been the victim of deceit since, in certain activities and in certain circumstances, merchants know, or ought to know, the origin of the products and the legitimacy of the marks that they use.”You can read this note in full here.