Substantiating the claim of deception in the opinion of Ms. Goldberg-Anavi - The claim of the risk of misleading consumers was proven in the online survey conducted by the expert Goldberg-Anavi and the "New Wave" research institute. This survey was conducted among a nationwide representative sample of 500 respondents aged 18 and over, and its conclusions are that more than 70% of the defendants believed that the defendant was an authorized service center of the plaintiff or the importer on its behalf, while only 20% believed that the defendants had no affiliation or authorization from the plaintiff or the importer on its behalf. This survey also proved that the defendants' use of the words "parallel imports" did not prevent deception among the majority of the respondents. The opinion and its findings remained unchallenged in the expert's cross-examination, and the defendants' refusal to interrogate Goldberg-Anavi on key points also constitutes further reinforcement of the content and reliability of the opinion. The plaintiff also rejects the defendants' claims regarding the angle of photography in the expert's survey, as they are alleged to be an extension of the façade and are devoid of any basis on their merits, since four publications by the defendants themselves were used.
On the other hand, according to the claim, there is no basis for the findings of the opinion submitted by the defendants on behalf of Prof. Katz, according to which the survey population was allegedly incorrectly defined, while the panel's data were not detailed and the sample was not representative. The survey conducted by Prof. Katz himself is tendentious and biased, since the publication presented in it is partial, truncated and manipulative, to the extent that it undermines the validity and validity of this survey. This is especially true that the defendants conducted no less than three consumer surveys, but chose for their own reasons to refrain from presenting the surveys conducted at the first two institutes and the findings of these surveys.
- Causes of action - The plaintiff has a number of causes of action, the foundations of which have been proven in the present proceeding - infringing use of trademarks, passing off, unfair interference in violation of the Commercial Torts Law, copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and unlawful enrichment.
- The liability of the defendant - the defendant, Raz, is the owner as well as the importer and exporter of defendant 1 and the living spirit in it that is responsible for all its actions. Raz confirmed in his testimony that he was the one who initiated, executed, ordered and approved the defendant's infringements, and in any case, in accordance with the law and case law, he bears personal responsibility for these violations, including in accordance with section 12 ofthe Torts Ordinance [New Version] (the "Torts Ordinance").
C2 The defendants' arguments
- The legitimacy of parallel imports - Parallel imports are a permissible and even welcome field of activity, which serves economic and social purposes. Parallel imports encourage free and legitimate competition, encourage the opening of additional jobs, expand the supply of products offered in Israel, and lower their prices. Official importers, including Union Motors, tried to thwart this free competition by filing an administrative petition on the grounds that they were not required to fulfill the manufacturer's responsibility for vehicles imported in parallel. The petition was dismissed, and even the appeal submitted to the Supreme Court was rejected (Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 7825/19 Union Motors in Tax Appeal v. Ministry of Transport and Road Safety (Nevo, October 18, 2020)) ("Union Motors"). Over the years, the various courts in Israel have ruled that the trademark owner has no reason to prevent the parallel import of original products, and over the years have rejected attempts to harm the parallel import of products into Israel.
The cars and spare parts are original from the plaintiff's home and in accordance with theAutomotive Industry Services and Professions Licensing Law, 5776-2016 (the "Licensing Law"), the defendant is obligated, like the authorized agencies on behalf of Toyota, the defendant is also obligated to possess "replacement" spare parts that do not bear the plaintiff's trademarks and to allow customers to choose between these spare parts.