The improper purpose of this lawsuit is to prevent the defendant, a direct competitor of Union Motors, from selling at prices significantly lower than those of Union Motors.
- Double payment - the plaintiff's petition for the relief of providing bills constitutes in fact a demand for double payment, since the plaintiff had already received payment for the vehicles or spare parts when she sold them for the first time. This is contrary to the rule regarding the extraction doctrine and as ruled in the Tommy Hilfiger case.
- Absence of damage - The plaintiff's claims for any damages due to infringement of her trademark and her demand for compensation for these damages should be rejected, since all of the plaintiff's products were sold by her to the parallel importer at the beginning of the road against payment of consideration. The allegation regarding consumer misleading does not establish damages for the plaintiff.
- No proof of actual deception - the plaintiff's claim of deception is based on the assumption of the existence of possible future damage that did not actually occur. The plaintiff did not present a single piece of evidence of actual misleading of consumers throughout the seven years of the legal process, except for the claims of the witness Mr. Tal Maor, which were merely claimed and are tainted by interests and lack of credibility. Testimony from the hearsay submitted by the plaintiff is inadmissible.
- Fair Use of Trademarks - The Trademarks Ordinance does not grant the trademark owner absolute exclusivity in the use of his registered marks, and the use of the defendants in this case is covered by the exception set out in section 47 of the Trademarks Ordinance that permits "true use" of the trademark even without the consent of its owner.
The defendants' use of the trademark also meets the auxiliary tests set forth in the Toto Gold case, as it is a necessary use for the purpose of emphasizing to consumers that this is an expert garage for Toyota and Lexus vehicles, manufactured by the plaintiff, marketed by the defendant. Nor has it been proven that the public was misled as a result, and the defendant meets the "sponsorship test" set in the Tommy Hilfiger case and even prides itself on the fact that it operates in the field of parallel imports, the prices of which are cheaper for its customers.