Caselaw

Civil Case (Center) 72922-12-18 Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (Also Trading As Toyota Motor Corporation) v. A. Rehovot Vehicle Ltd. - part 15

January 29, 2026
Print

00In the Tommy Hilfiger case, it was held with regard to the use of the trademark discussed there - "Tommy Hilfiger's Importer Warehouse" - that "the appellants were guilty of a sin with regard to the choice of the name" (ibid., para.  68), since the use of this name is liable to attract customers to the business in the belief that it is the official importer of Tommy Hilfiger products to Israel, and thus constitutes potential misleading of the customer public.  This, even if it is only a preliminary deception, and even if after the customers arrive at the business and even before the final transaction has been executed, it can already be understood that this is a business of a parallel importer ("...  Even if after they arrived at the business itself, they would have understood that this was not the case: after they arrived at the business on a false basis, the actual deception had already been committed" (v.  69)).  It also ruled that the use of paints that are part of the Tommy Hilfiger brand's well-known trademark should also be examined, as a general examination of the use of colors alongside the use of the name "Tommy Hilfiger".  Indeed, in this case, it was determined that when the name "Tommy Hilfiger" was used in the name of the business, the exterior colors were used as an element that increased the fear of misleading the customers, but after the use of the name "Tommy Hilfiger" was stopped, there is no impediment to the use of these colors.  In other words, even in a case where, according to the auxiliary tests, the parallel importer is ostensibly obligated to emphasize and differentiate, since the cost of these products is significantly lower than the financial scope of transactions for the sale of vehicles, and even the relationship between the seller and the consumer is one-time, since it is not a purchase that involves any repairs or maintenance, it was determined that the use of the trademark within the framework of the trade name of the business is liable to be misleading and therefore is prohibited.

Previous part1...1415
16...26Next part