Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv) 51261-02-23 Avner Dayanim – Champions Trading Group Ltd. - part 7

I can say that I've been in the industry for 20 years and I know all the customers before Eitan, I went in and got to know all the customers, he didn't know anything, 99% of the customers don't know who Eitan is.

(p.  2, lines 9-16 of the injunction)

It has not been proven that the defendant has exclusivity over products:

Attorney Katan:     But he was a different player.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   Until 2012 there were two players, right.

Attorney Katan:     What difference does it make? But you had a unique concept.  Just because you were the only one doing forgeries or copying doesn't mean it's a unique concept.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   Maybe, no.  Until 2012, we developed it ever since.  We brought more models, Molyev has a very limited inventory.

Attorney Katan:     What difference does it make? You're talking about saying that you have a unique concept.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   That's right.

Attorney Katan:     So explain to us what your unique concept is.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   That was our concept.

Attorney Katan:     That you're copying and models, that's all you claim is a unique concept?

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   But, but those little nuances were our concept of who we are.

Attorney Katan:     What, what it was, let us explain to us what was special.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   We took every game.  We made a certain variation on them.  Not exact copying, variation.  A certain commercial variation.

Attorney Katan:     Where, what is the secret of this, tell me? What's the secret in saying that instead of copying one by one, I copied 80 percent.

The witness, Mr. Crankors:   It's a fact, it's a fact that there were no competitors.

(p.  26 of lines 3-20)

52. Even according to the testimony of Eyal Dov Hananovich (affidavit dated July 8, 2025), the market for sports products (including suits), including prices, is transparent and open. Customers and store owners share information about prices and terms.  Therefore, this is not confidential information, but rather competitive activity.
53. It has not escaped our notice that the defendant applied for an injunction after she learned that the plaintiff was contacting her clients after he had finished his employment with her and that the parties had reached an agreement that did not bind any of the parties.
54. Conclusion - The counter-plaintiff did not prove that her list of customers constitutes a trade secret. The plaintiff presented evidence that these customers could be easily located by means of a simple search on the Internet (Statement of Reply to the Counterclaim, Section 6.d).  In the absence of an explicit non-disclosure agreement, and taking into account the nature of the information (sports stores), it has not been proven that the counter-plaintiff took reasonable measures to maintain the confidentiality of the information.
55. It should be noted that the counter-plaintiff claimed that she knew about the plaintiff's actions in parallel with his work for her from the period of his employment. Despite this, the counter-plaintiff did not contact the counter-defendant 2 in real time with these claims, and her only application to the court for a temporary injunction was after the plaintiff's employment was terminated.  The counter-defendant 2 even claimed that it did not receive a request or complaint from the counter-plaintiff in real time, or at least it was not proven otherwise.
56. In the absence of proof of a trade secret, and taking into account that the plaintiff has worked for many years in the field and accumulated knowledge and connections, he cannot be prevented from practicing in his field of expertise. The competitive activity has not been proven to deviate from legitimate activity.  The counterclaim for theft of trade secrets and breach of trust is dismissed.
57. The counter-plaintiff claims financial damages caused to her as a result of the plaintiff's actions. The counter-plaintiff presented a partial list of the counter-plaintiff's customers who purchased goods from J&K following the plaintiff's inquiries (Appendix 13 to the defendant's affidavit), but this is only a list.
58. In addition, the counter-plaintiff's agreement in the framework of the temporary injunction (labor dispute 37149-02-23) to a very limited restriction of contacting only 9 clients until May 10, 2023, reflects her own assessment of the extent of the actual damage. This limitation contradicts the scope of the astronomical damages alleged in the counterclaim.
59. In addition, the counter-plaintiff did not submit a professional opinion regarding the alleged losses and their source, and relied on calculations made by her administration. The absence of such an opinion significantly weakens her claims regarding a causal connection and the extent of the damage.
60. The counter-plaintiff presented details of transactions for the years 2022 and 2023, showing a decrease in customer purchases from the counter-plaintiff after the termination of the plaintiff's employment (paragraph 54 of the defendant's affidavit - Appendix "12"). However, these reports do not prove the counterclaimant's claim that the decrease in her income is directly related to specific actions taken by the plaintiff.
61. Since the claims regarding theft of trade secrets and breach of trust were rejected, no causal connection between the plaintiff's actions and the alleged damages was proven. The counter-plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving these damages.  The counterclaim for damages is dismissed.

The claim for the provision of bills

62. The counter-plaintiff (Champions Trading Group Ltd.) petitioned in the counterclaim for the relief of providing accounts. The essence of this lawsuit was to obligate Defendant 2 to provide full details of its income from sales to specific customers in the period between January 2022 and the date the counterclaim was filed.  This remedy is claimed by virtue of Section 15 of the Commercial Torts Law, 5759-1999, and Chapter A of the Commercial Torts Regulations (Remedies and Procedures), 5760-1999.  The purpose of the remedy was to enable the counter-plaintiff to calculate its losses in respect of these customers, and accordingly to claim additional compensation.
63. This claim should be dismissed. The remedy for the provision of bills was deferred for a number of main reasons.
64. First, this remedy is an ancillary remedy and depends on the existence of a substantial provenance cause. Since the counter-plaintiff's claims of theft of trade secrets, breach of trust, and unfair competition against the counter-defendants were rejected, the factual and legal basis for the main remedy has collapsed, and with it the basis for the accompanying remedy of providing accounts.
65. Second, as the defendant against 2 claimed in her statement of defense, giving accounts in this case could have constituted an illegitimate "fishing expedition". This is an attempt to extract trade secrets and sensitive business data of a competing company (sales volumes and customer acquisitions) without a proven basis of legal liability.
66. Third, the remedy of providing accounts is not intended to relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proof imposed on him to quantify his damages as much as possible already at the stage of filing the claim. The counter-plaintiff should have detailed and quantified her claim on the basis of the data in her possession, and not rely on the data of the counter-defendant 2 in order to substantiate her claim after the main grounds had not been proven.

Conclusion

70. The plaintiff's (Avner Dayanim) claim against the defendant (Alufut Trade Group Ltd.) is partially accepted:
71. The defendant will pay the plaintiff a difference in convalescence pay in the sum of ILS 3,717, plus shekel interest from November 1, 2022 until the actual payment.
72. The defendant will pay the plaintiff pension deposit differentials in the amount of ILS 33,098, plus shekel interest from November 1, 2022 until the actual payment.

• The defendant will return to the plaintiff the ownership of the mobile phone line numbered 050-8885222, within 30 days from the date of the judgment.

1. The other components of the claim, including the claim for compensation for unlawful dismissal, severance pay, and the passage of prior notice, are dismissed.
2. When we come to award legal expenses, we consider, inter alia, the results of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties during it, as well as the nature of the remedies that were awarded. In the case ofD.A., even though the claim was partially accepted, we found that the plaintiff's conduct, as proven before us, and in particular his actions contrary to the duty of trust towards the defendant (as detailed in paragraphs 25-50 above), as well as the fact that a significant part of his claim was dismissed, do not justify awarding court costs in his favor.  Therefore, each party will bear its own expenses in respect of the main claim.
3. The counterclaim filed by the defendant (Champions Trading Group Ltd.) against the plaintiff (Avner Dayanim) and against the counter-defendant 2 (J&K Master Brands) is dismissed in its entirety.
4. The counter-plaintiff must pay the counter-defendant 2 attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 7,000 and legal expenses in the sum of ILS 1,000.

Appeal in favor to the National Labor Court in Jerusalem within 30 days of the date of the judgment.