It was further argued that in the data under discussion, the use of the term "parallel imports" is not sufficient to rule out misleading, since, as was determined in the Tommy Hilfiger case, consumers are not necessarily aware of the meaning of this technical term. The term "licensed parallel importer" is also allegedly an invention of the defendants, since in contrast to the term "licensed importer", which operates with the authorization and supervision of the vehicle manufacturer, the "licensed parallel importer" garage does not have an authorization relationship with the car manufacturer and is not subject to its professional support or accompaniment. Therefore, the purpose of using this phrase is to instill in consumers a false sense of security and to resemble an authorized dealership on behalf of Toyota, with the many advantages inherent in this for the defendants.
This is also true with regard to the use of the term "licensed" only, without clarifying that the reference is to "authorized by the Ministry of Transport" and the modest use of the words "parallel importer".
- Prohibited use of the domain name - In accordance with the rulings and rulings reviewed, the use of the domain name in the defendants' internet address, email and Facebook page does not meet the conditions of the case law and may cause misleading. This is due to the extensive use of the trade name and logo on the website, the design of the landing page, and the contractual design of the entire site, which create a misleading impression that the business enjoys Toyota sponsorship and serves Toyota vehicle owners in Rehovot and Nes Ziona. The addendum "RR" is minor, transparent, and lacks a discriminating character and does not negate the misleading resulting from the use of the name Toyota, which is found in the domain names of websites that are authorized dealerships on behalf of Toyota.
- Prohibited use of the design of the business - the defendants designed the service center in Rehovot in a similar manner to the point of deceiving the design of authorized agencies. This is done, among other things, by using the same color combination (red, white, and gray), using a huge silver Toyota logo on a gray background with the inscription TOYOTA in red, as well as using signage and design stripes identified with Toyota. The use of these visual signs, which make up the general contract of Toyota authorized dealerships, is not accidental and indicates the desire to resemble these dealerships. The contractual imitation, as well as the similarity in the type of products and the common circle of customers, along with all the circumstances, raises a serious concern that consumers will mistakenly believe that the defendants are acting as an agency on behalf of Toyota in the city of Rehovot.
- Prohibited use of publications - The defendant's publications have almost identical appearance to the publications of Toyota authorized dealerships, including due to the use of the same fonts and the same color while significantly highlighting the silver Toyota logo. These publications are unfair and disproportionate uses of the plaintiff's trademarks, and this to a much greater extent than is required to inform consumers that the defendants provide sales and maintenance services for Toyota vehicles.
- Disguised Prohibited Use of Images from the Plaintiff's Websites and Authorized Agencies on its behalf - The defendants make use of the images taken from the Plaintiff's website and the website of authorized agencies on its behalf around the world, in various publications, including on the Facebook page and on the website. In some of the publications, the defendants disguise this copying by using a different background. The plaintiff's name appears on all of these publications and therefore acts in her strong right that she is the creator of the work and the owner of the copyright therein. The defendants' claim that they purchased these photographs was not proven by them.
- Actual deception - The plaintiff proved, through the testimony of the dealership manager Hai Motors, that in many cases potential buyers do indeed mistakenly believe that the defendant is indeed an authorized dealership of Toyota in the city of Rehovot. This is in contrast to other parallel importers that do not impersonate Toyota and do not create such deception. As appears from the testimony of this witness, customers from the community, who are not experts, do not necessarily understand the distinction between an agency or service center that operates on behalf of the manufacturer and an agency that engages in parallel imports and provides maintenance services that are not under the supervision of the plaintiff.
In this context, it was further argued that the defendants' choice to waive the testimony of Mr. Yehuda Cohen, who testified in his affidavit that he continued that there were no customers who were misled as a result of the defendants' presentation of the matter, Darshani says and is credited to the defendants' duty. This is especially true when no explanation was presented for the witness's failure to appear for the interrogation of his affidavit, such as a certificate of the witness's illness, and his interrogation was not even requested at another time in order to leave the testimony on his behalf as part of the defense's evidence.