In order to attract potential customers, the plaintiff, a seller of medical devices, adopted a strategy of randomly circulating invitations to events, organized by the plaintiff, which were allegedly educational conferences. In reality, these were events where the plaintiff commercialized its own products. Many of the invitees were people with an illness which could allegedly be cured by the products of the plaintiff.
The impression that these events, which were organized in venues that were not commonly used for trading, were special and were only open to a limited number of visitors, was strengthened by several additional features of the event. For example, the entrance to the event was paying (hence, not free), the number of invitees was limited and there was a visitor registration at the beginning of the event.
During the event, participants could receive small gifts from the plaintiff, use some services for free, and take part in a lottery, all with an eye on promoting the products of the plaintiff.
The visitors, who may not have intended to purchase any products, were encouraged to urgently purchase the advertised products.
Also, participants of informational presentations that were held, were asked to name their illnesses and afterwards, according to the nature of the illness, were convinced of the positive qualities and the use of the proposed medical devices (sold by the plaintiff).
Lastly, the plaintiff did not have the required official authorizations to market and distribute the medical devices concerned.