Adv. Les-Gross: Now it's true that some of these customers are in the left column, it's actually the same customers and the same contacts, it's just that the name is different because that's how it's called on the website, the site Casino inUK And that's what it's called on a casino site in Ireland. For example, I'll give you an example, "888" is the same as "888 Casino", right?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Specifically "888" yes. All the others are not here, which are necessarily the same company.
Adv. Les-Gross: Yes? Boyle's Sports It's not BoyleSports On the other side?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Maybe, it is.
Adv. Les-Gross: and-"pink casino"It's not Leovegas?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Yes, let's see. Probably if it's the same name, included inside, it's probably the same contact.
Adv. Les-Gross: It's not the same name. I'm telling you"pinocasino"And-"Leovegas"It's the same thing.
The witness, Mr. Ozan: I don't know, it could be.
Adv. Les-Gross: and-"Unibet" and "32red" is the same thing?
The witness, Mr. Ozan: Maybe, I don't know.
(p. 48 p.)
- In other words, the sites are similar, which testifies to the defendant's intention. However, the tort of "passing off" under the Commercial Torts Law is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the law (see section 22 of the Commercial Torts Law). The transfer of a hearing venue has no substantive jurisdiction to hear causes of action under Chapter A of the Commercial Torts Law. Section 1 of Chapter A of the Commercial Torts Law states that "a dealer shall not cause an asset that he sells or a service he provides to be mistakenly considered as an asset or a service of another dealer or as an asset or service that has a connection to another dealer." In view of our conclusion that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims under chapter A of the Commercial Torts Law, this cause of action is dismissed.
- According to Lankri's testimony in August 2022, Yogev Oz approached him again and suggested that he move to the defendant again. The defendant tried to extract business information about the plaintiff from Lankri. Lankri testified that the defendant also contacted him in August 2022 and also tried to get information about a new project in the plaintiff - GOLD IRA , a month later the defendant established an identical project. Lankri testified that the defendant offered him money in exchange for transferring information to the defendant. Lankri refused. This is an attempt to solicit an employee for industrial espionage (paragraphs 30-32 of Lankri's affidavit).
Interim Summary
- Despite the argument that there may be other factors that caused or contributed to the decrease in those six months, we determine that proof of damage in the relevant six months is sufficient, even if there is no direct proof that the decrease in income stemmed solely from the defendants' actions.
Unjust enrichment
- The defendant's engagement with the defendant was unlawful while stealing the plaintiff's customers.
- The tort of unjust enrichment is enshrined in section 1 of the Unlawful Enrichment Law, 5739-1979: "A person who received an asset, service or other benefit not in accordance with a legal right, and at the expense of another person, must return what he received, or pay its value."
We will examine below the foundations of the tort of cause of wealth and not in law
- Enrichment - The defendant persuaded the defendant to move to work for her, and in this way she received information about the plaintiff's customers, and thanks to this information, she contracted with these customers, who generated profits for her. In this case, the defendant received shares from the defendant and the defendant earned money illegally due to the theft of the plaintiff's customers by the defendants.
- At the expense of others - the enrichment comes directly or indirectly at the plaintiff's expense and unlawfully. The defendant's work for the defendant harmed the plaintiff's income, while the defendant acted in contravention of his obligations in the agreement with the plaintiff.
- Contrary to a legal right, enrichment is not legally justified. The defendant breached his obligation under the agreement he signed with the plaintiff.
- The defendant caused the plaintiff to breach the employment agreement between him and the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant unlawfully enriched himself at the plaintiff's expense while stealing her clients.
Conclusion and Compensation
- The defendant was exposed to all of the Company's sensitive secrets and commercial activities, including financial data, costs and pricing of services, profit margins, methods of use, potential customers, their needs and usage habits.
- After working for the plaintiff for about two years, the defendant announced the termination of his employment with the plaintiff.
- The defendant informed Eliran Uzan that after the termination of his employment, he intends to work for another company that deals with app marketing, a field of activity that is substantially different from the plaintiff's. The defendant made a false representation.
- Only after the defendant moved to work for the defendant did she begin to compete with the plaintiff directly in the specific field in which the defendant dealt with the plaintiff. Since the defendant's move to it, the defendant has been engaged in a field of activity identical to the plaintiff's field of activity and has directly competed with it. The defendant breached the agreement with the plaintiff. The defendant contacted the plaintiff's clients.
- The defendants made use of the plaintiff's confidential information.
- The defendant's conduct constitutes a fundamental breach of the employment agreement, theft of trade secrets and a breach of the duties of good faith and trust that the defendant owes to the plaintiff.
- The defendant's conduct constitutes a tort of breach of contract, a tort under the Unjust Enrichment Law, and a breach of the Commercial Torts Law.
- In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no basis for compensation according to the value of the defendant's shares with the defendant, since the plaintiff did not prove in accounting documents the amount of the damage. Moreover, the value of the shares and whether it reflects the plaintiff's damage has not been proven.
- In addition, there is no reason to issue an order for the payment of accounts when the plaintiff has not met the burden required to prove its exact damage (Regulation 1 of the Commercial Torts Regulations, 5760-1999).
- It was proven that the defendant caused a breach of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, enriched itself at the plaintiff's expense, and that the defendant contacted at least 6 of the plaintiff's customers. Since the statutory compensation without proof of damage was determined under the Commercial Torts Law in the sum of ILS 100,000 for each theft of a secret under the Commercial Torts Law, the defendants will pay the plaintiff the sum of ILS 600,000.
Conclusion
- The defendants must pay the plaintiff jointly and severally compensation in the amount of ILS 600,000 for the wrongs caused to the plaintiff.
- In addition, the defendants will pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of ILS 60,000 and legal expenses in the amount of ILS 10,000 .
Appeal the right to the National Labor Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment.