0
- Admittedly, a distinction must be made between the circumstances that were on the agenda in the matter discussed in the Tommy Hilfiger case for our purposes, in the sense that the defendant clarifies in most of its publications that it is a parallel importer, whereas in the case discussed there, the use of the trade name - "the importer's warehouse" does not include any clarification that it is a parallel importer and not the official importer, so that in any case the fear of deception in this context is more pronounced. However, as I will clarify below, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has borne the burden and proved that the publication in this case is also misleading.
- At this stage, and in the light of the normative framework and the arguments of the parties reviewed above, it is necessary to examine the picture of evidence presented to the court by the parties to the parties, in order to examine whether the criteria required for recognition of the existence of the protection test were proven in the present case or not.
- The prosecution witness Aslan testified that the defendant's conduct with regard to her presentation of her activity and her actual business misleads the consumer public, along with the damages she causes to the plaintiff and her activity (paragraph 46 of Aslan's affidavit). According to him, the damage was caused as a result of confusion created by the consumer, who believed in his application to the defendant that it was an authorized dealership on behalf of Toyota, and at the end of the day, when he was not satisfied with the service he received, he attributed the dissatisfaction to the plaintiff, who allegedly did not properly supervise an authorized garage on her behalf. In this context, the plaintiff claimed that since it is a global corporation, users who receive service from a Toyota dealership in a certain country share their experiences on social media, and these reviews and opinions are viewed around the world. As a result, damage was caused to the global Toyota corporation that exceeds the boundaries of the Israeli clientele (Prov. 24 s. - p. 26 s. 5). As proof of the deception that actually occurred, Aslan testified that a case was brought to the plaintiff's attention in which after the defendant distributed a discount coupon in the amount of ILS 200, a customer contacted a Toyota dealership in Ramla and asked to set a date for the maintenance of his vehicle after he was convinced that the voucher in his possession was valid for all authorized Toyota dealerships (paragraph 33 of Aslan's affidavit). In addition to the aforesaid, Aslan confirmed in his testimony that he was not aware of a specific case of a disappointed customer, or any problem that occurred in the provision of the service by the defendant and damaged Toyota's image in the public (Prov. p. 37, paras. 23-28).
With regard to the question of defendant 1's use of the term "licensed parallel importer", and defendant 1's claim that its employees undergo training that was purchased from the plaintiff, Aslan confirmed in his interrogation that he was not aware of the sale of various professional training on behalf of Toyota (such as for hybrid systems, communications, engines and safety), which the defendant claimed had purchased. Beyond that, Aslan clarified that in any event, even if the defendant acquired these trainings, its employees do not undergo official and ongoing training and are not under the supervision of the plaintiff's service department (Prov. p. 33, para. 24 - p. 34, para. 11). Aslan testified that agencies that do not meet the plaintiff's standards are liable to lose their franchise (Prov. p. 40, paras. 16-17).