The plaintiff also argued that the phrase "parallel importer licensee" is clearly misleading, since the parallel importer is not subject to the supervision that the manufacturer grants to the authorized agencies, and even the use of the word "licensed", without clarifying that it is an authorization from the Ministry of Transportation only and not the plaintiff's authorization, contributes to misleading. The plaintiff's witness, Tal Maor, even testified that he has often encountered potential purchasers of vehicles who mistakenly believe under the circumstances that the defendant is indeed an authorized agency of the plaintiff. Aslan's affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff was also accompanied in this regard by a number of examples of trade names used by other garages that provide maintenance services to Toyota vehicles and are not licensed garages.
The plaintiff further argued in support of her claim that the aforementioned case law tests were not met, that the defendant herself sometimes uses her own name - "Rehovot Vehicle - TOYOTA Specialist", so that in any case it is clear that it itself is also of the opinion that it is possible to sell and offer maintenance services for Toyota vehicles to its customers without making use of the trade name "Toyota Rehovot".
It was also argued, and even this with respect to the case law tests reviewed above, that the use made by the defendants of the trademark was disproportionate, lacking in good faith and deviating from all opinions in an extreme manner beyond what is required for the purpose of informing consumers that the defendant is a parallel importer who is also engaged in the repair and maintenance of Toyota vehicles.
- The defendants argued, on the other hand, that it is clear that the auxiliary tests relating to the protection of "true use" exist in this case, since the use made by them of the plaintiff's trade name is essential for the purpose of informing the public about its areas of activity - the marketing and sale of new Toyota and Lexus vehicles, as well as the marketing of original parts and repair, maintenance and leasing and rental services of such original vehicles.
They also argued that there was no real fear of misleading, since the defendant's trade name is "Toyota Rehovot - Parallel Imports" or "Toyota Rehovot Service and Sales Center Authorized Parallel Importer". According to them, the plaintiff was indeed unable to find a single witness to support her claim of misleading the public. Raz testified that this clearly arises from the advertising signs, the signs in the service center, the advertising on social networks, the license plates, and more. It was also argued that sometimes the defendant even explicitly clarifies on the initiative that it does not belong to the plaintiff's garage chain.