Summary of the plaintiff's arguments
- The plaintiff established his business with ten fingers, with an emphasis on quality, professionalism and dedication. The plaintiff has his own unique style and is identified as such. These are original works that are the product of the plaintiff's imagination, and they are made in accordance with the orders that the plaintiff receives.
- The plaintiff is the owner of the rights to the works and the law recognizes his exclusive right. Since it was not otherwise agreed between him and his clients, in accordance with section 35 of the Copyright Law, 5768-2007 (hereinafter: the "Law"), the default applies so that the rights in the works belong exclusively to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's customers are not permitted to sell the work to a third party or to make commercial use of it.
- The defendant operates a branch called "Army Club" and it operates on behalf of the defendant and markets customers from the security forces. This is a single legal entity and the companies share accounts on social networks and issue different appeal tax invoices to the defendant. The alleged infringements are carried out by the defendant and by the Army Club.
- The defendant knew that many original paintings that she used for commercial use belonged to the plaintiff and she knew that she had to ask for permission to use them. The plaintiff refused this request completely and unequivocally, but this did not prevent the defendant from continuing to carry out the commercial use and to enrich himself at his expense. Despite the explicit refusal, the defendant kept dozens of drawings of the plaintiff in its various databases for the purpose of reuse in exchange for payment from its customers.
- The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The plaintiff details in his summaries three main violations which he claims the defendant committed:
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)Commercial use of dozens of paintings, including violation of moral right and failure to give credit to the works. The plaintiff adds that even after he warned the defendant and sent a warning letter, and even after the lawsuit was filed, the defendant did not stop and did not understand the wrongdoing of her actions.