Danny, Section 97 is not there to legislate against the scam you describe. There are specific laws to cover that.
A UK precedent illustrating Section 97 in action is Microsoft v Plato Technology: See page 6 of http://www.tifac.org.in/do/pfc/pub/octbul.pdf
"the court held that it should be incumbent on the honest trader to check that the products he buys are genuine"
Which is one of the points I've been trying to explain to you. The court in this case recognised that the defendant had not wilfully infringed copyright, even so they found them guilty of copyright infringement. The court ordered a "narrow relief" amongst other remedies.
Getty are asking for $1000 (approx. £525) per infringement. In an earlier post I explained how this might be easily be considered 'narrow relief' in a UK court of law in light of their standard price structure...
Use: Web - Corporate or Promotional Site
Size: Medium - Up to 300x250 pixels
Placement: Home page
Start date: 1 Jan 2007
End date: 1 Jan 2008
Territory: United Kingdom
Industry: Fashion / Textiles
Exclusivity: No Exclusivity
Contact us for exclusivity
Price: £ 1,015.00 GBP