(p. 52)
- We were persuaded that in those months the plaintiff suffered damage by a decrease in income close to the defendant's employment with the defendant, and that the damage was caused as a result of the defendants' violations. This is not a coincidence. The defendant began to work with at least 6 of the plaintiff's clients and the evidence is that there was a decrease in income in those months despite the years of relationships and taking into account the documents presented that some of the plaintiff's clients in the months of 6/22 - 8/22 moved to work shortly after the defendant moved to work for the defendant.
- The visibility of the plaintiff's and defendant's websites is identical and the format is identical. This is copying:
Adv. Les-Gross: Tell me, you are very, very long in your affidavit about your claim that "Kulamed" copied your site one by one.
The witness, Mr. Ozan: That's right.
Adv. Les-Gross: And I'm asking you, isn't it true that Raz didn't do web design, right?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: That's right.
Adv. Les-Gross: It is true that those who work in web design are people ux, ui. People whose job is web design, right?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: That's right. Though I understand where it's going, OK.
Adv. Les-Gross: An intelligent guy.
The witness, Mr. Ozan: You too.
Adv. Les-Gross: You started this business, I'm sure you,
The witness, Mr. Ozan: You're also very intelligent.
Adv. Les-Gross: I'm trying, thank you. Now it's true that if I'm now, let's say, I don't understand anything aboutux, uiBut let's say I'm an expert in the field,
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Yes.
Adv. Les-Gross: I go to your website, I see it and now I say, you know what, even I don't understand anything, I took from the staff I paid her, I tell her, do you see this site?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Yes.
(p. 48 p.)