Even with regard to the arguments against the content and wording of the survey question, Ms. Goldberg-Anavi clarified that the photograph of the advertisement presented by her to the respondents included, twice and clearly, the mention that it was a parallel importer and that the open wording of her question was intended for an open and fair presentation of the subject to the respondents (Prov. p. 60, paras. 8-14). It also argued that a questioner who believed after reviewing the publication that it was an authorized person of a parallel importer could have included this understanding in his answer and replied that the defendant in his opinion was not licensed by Toyota (pp. 59, 32-33). This explanation of the expert is logical and acceptable to me.
On the other hand, Prof. Katz confirmed in his testimony that he did not examine the conduct of the survey as to whether the term "parallel importer licensed garage" is an accepted and recognized term, and that he included in the survey question the alternatives that he was asked to examine - 'official importer expert' and 'parallel importer expert' (Prov. p. 87, paras. 1-21). I find that there is substance to the plaintiff's position on this matter, which claimed that the formula of the survey question by Prof. Katz is a 'reading test only'. After all, the question asked in the Katz survey was presented with a "closed" question, which includes an assumption regarding the existence of authorization, when one of the two alternatives of the answer is already included in the publication presented for his review, which includes the term "parallel imports." Prof. Katz's response to this possible difficulty did not include a professional response on its merits, but rather pointed only to the examination that he was asked to perform (Prov. p. 87, s. 22 - p. 90, s. 4).
With regard to Prof. Katz's criticism regarding the lack of or biased mix and representation in the profile of the respondents in the survey conducted by Ms. Goldberg-Anavi (in terms of sector, place of residence, etc.), it should be noted that in his cross-examination it turned out that this criticism was inaccurate in many aspects, including due to the gaps in the definition of population groups among the experts (Prov. pp. 102, s. 4 - pp. 114, s. 16).