I agree with you. In my view it makes no real difference to the question of liability. It merely shows Topman’s contempt for the law.
It thereby highlights the ineffectiveness of the legal system in protecting intellectual property belonging to small/poor IP creators, especially when trying to enforce their allegedly so important legal rights against large corporations.
One of the bundle of rights making up copyright is the right to prevent unauthorised use. That right was supposedly exercised and Topman supposedly agreed to compy with it. Except they appear not to have in fact complied.
So it’s more:
They did A. They were not allowed to. They were told to stop doing A and agreed they would stop. They didn’t.
When other people run off several thousand copies of IP which they’re not entitled to copy, we get lots of adverts and ‘friendly’ notices from the FBI about how doing so is a crime and we’ll go to jail for centuries if we so much as look at a dodgy DVD in the market.
We also get actual police raids and seizures of infringing goods and all that jazz.
When it’s a large corporation unlawfully using someone else’s IP, none of that happens.