In this article, it is argued that in the meaning of the provision stipulated at par.(2) art.1852 PC RM, the term “illegal use of trademark” do not cover the following: the infringement of trademark; the application of foreign trademarks on products or on its packages; the illegal import of products with a foreign trademark; offering for sale or the possession for this purpose of the products with a foreign trademark etc. It is also revealed that the misappropriation of the price difference between the real price and the requested price of some products or services claimed, usually of poor quality - committed in the process of trading the products marked with identical or similar signs that can be confused with the applied trademark of the registered product or whose application is sought on behalf of other persons for marking of identical products or services to those for which the trademark is primarily applied – it only qualifies under par.(2) art.1852 PC RM. It is shown that the method of calculation of the size of the caused damages, covered by the norms of Chapter XI (p.31-38) annex nr.1 the Decision of Republic of the Moldova Government on the valuation of objects of intellectual property, nr.783 from 30.06.2003, is available in the event of any of the offenses provided by par.(2) - (6) and lett.e) par.(7) art.1852 PC RM. Similarly, there are brought important arguments in favor of the idea that, in case of the provision of art.59 Law No.64 of Romania from 11.10.1991 on patents, there is no reason to restrict somehow the semantics of the concept of “putting into circulation”. As with the offences under Law No.84 of Romania from 15.04.1998 on trademarks and geographical indications, in this situation by “putting in circulation” there should be understood any action by which is conducted the introduction of the product in the cycle of trade: the exposure to sale, the selling, offering for mortgage, the loan and even offering it free of charge.