Not every civil infringement of intellectual property rights constitutes a criminal offence in Israel. Where a business or individual is investigated for allegedly counterfeit goods or unauthorized commercial exploitation of copyright-protected works, the prosecution must establish the specific statutory offence, including its prohibited acts and required mental element. Ownership, the scope of protection and proof that the goods are actually infringing may all be disputed.
For foreign manufacturers, brand owners and international counsel, Israeli criminal enforcement must be distinguished from private civil proceedings. A brand owner’s assertion that goods are counterfeit may trigger investigation, but it is not itself proof beyond reasonable doubt of an offence. The statutory and evidentiary questions differ across trademarks, copyright and designs.
Police Investigations into Intellectual Property Offences
An investigation may follow a rights holder’s complaint, information supplied by another source or proactive enforcement action. Israeli police procedures for handling intellectual property violations contemplate collecting evidence of ownership and the chain of rights, examples of allegedly infringing products and preliminary identification evidence from rights holders. For registered trademarks, registration evidence is relevant.
Investigators may examine the source of the goods, identity of suppliers, invoices, price, circumstances of purchase, distribution methods and the suspect’s knowledge. These matters may be relevant to the disputed mental element as well as the commercial nature of the conduct. The presence of a trademark on an item is not, without more, a complete evidentiary basis for criminal liability.
Searches, Seizure and Computer Evidence
IP investigations can involve searches of commercial premises, warehouses or offices and seizure of products, packaging, business records, invoices, marketing materials and equipment. Police may seek judicial search orders and in some circumstances use representatives of rights holders to assist with identifying suspected counterfeit goods.
Where computers and digital materials are involved, the authority for the search, the terms of any warrant and applicable digital-evidence procedures require careful review. The seizure record, product identification, continuity of custody and any comparison with authentic goods may later matter in assessing admissibility and weight.
A foreign company supplying information to Israeli authorities should distinguish first-hand knowledge of product authenticity from assumptions based on seller identity, packaging appearance or distribution outside an authorized network.
Criminal Copyright Offences Under Israeli Law
Sections 61-63 of the Israeli Copyright Law, 5768-2007 establish principal criminal copyright provisions, including specified commercial acts involving infringing copies. Depending on the section and elements involved, prohibited conduct includes making or importing infringing copies for trade and certain commercial dealings, distribution, broadcasts and making works available to the public.
Statutory maximum penalties differ. Certain making or importing offences carry a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, while several other dealing and possession offences carry a maximum of three years. These are statutory maxima, not predictions of an individual sentence.
The prosecution must establish that the asserted work is protected, that the relevant person had rights to enforce and that the accused carried out the charged conduct. Foreign works may raise additional questions concerning entitlement to protection in Israel and evidence of the ownership chain. Civil allegations concerning unauthorized reproduction should not be mechanically recast as criminal charges.
Counterfeit Trademarks and Criminal Liability
Section 60 of Israel’s Trademarks Ordinance addresses specified unauthorized commercial acts involving registered trademarks or imitations, including marking goods, commercial importation and certain dealing or possession activities. The relevant maximum imprisonment for these offences may be three years, together with the applicable fine provisions.
The prosecution should identify the Israeli registered mark, its validity and covered goods at the relevant time, the accused product, the act alleged and the statutory mental element. Evidence that a product bears an apparently familiar brand does not itself determine whether it is counterfeit, or establish the accused’s awareness.
In State of Israel v. Nissim Guetta, a case concerning goods displaying registered trademarks, the court considered the mental element under Section 60 by reference to Section 20 of the Penal Law. The burden of proving the required awareness lay with the prosecution. The defendant was convicted concerning some goods but acquitted concerning others where the requisite knowledge was not proved. The decision illustrates why distinct product groups and factual circumstances should be evaluated separately.
Criminal Offences Involving Registered Designs
Section 92 of Israel’s Designs Law, 5777-2017 creates criminal liability for defined commercial exploitation of a registered design, including manufacture or importation of a product bearing a design identical to the registered design without authorization. The statutory sanction is a fine, with special provisions for offences committed by corporations.
The criminal rule is narrower than the civil framework for design infringement. An allegation that products create a similar overall impression does not dispense with the criminal provision’s particular requirements. The registration, representations, alleged identity of appearance and act of production or importation should be examined closely.
Company Directors and Corporate Responsibility
Criminal proceedings may involve a company, employees and, in specified circumstances, its officers. Israeli copyright legislation imposes obligations on certain corporate officers to supervise and take measures to prevent offences by the corporation or its employees, with statutory presumptions and potential defenses as provided by law.
The defendant’s position in the company is not a substitute for reviewing the exact applicable provision, responsibilities, relevant knowledge and preventive controls. An import manager, warehouse operator and corporate director may have different evidentiary positions even where they work for the same business.
Notice of a Proposed Indictment and the Right to Make Submissions
Under Section 60A of Israel’s Criminal Procedure Law, a person suspected of an offence classified as a felony may, subject to statutory exceptions, be entitled to notification when the investigative file is transmitted to the prosecuting authority and an opportunity to submit arguments against indictment. The standard period for written submissions is 30 days from the notification.
This mechanism does not automatically apply to every intellectual property investigation. Classification of the particular offence and its maximum penalty matter. Counsel should consider whether representations can address the validity or ownership of the asserted right, authenticity evidence, the required mental element, commercial scale or weaknesses in the identification of the alleged infringing goods.
Conditional Arrangements Before an Indictment
Israeli criminal procedure allows conditional arrangements in qualifying cases, under which a suspect accepts defined obligations and prosecution may refrain from filing charges. The State Attorney’s Office has guidance relevant to conditional arrangements involving IP offences.
Eligibility depends on the statutory conditions and the facts of the case. The nature and value of products, the extent of alleged trade and possible public safety risks can be material. Suspected counterfeit pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and other health-related goods may present different concerns from lower-risk consumer articles.
Access to Evidence After Charges Are Filed
Following an indictment for a felony or misdemeanor, Israeli criminal procedure generally provides the accused and defense counsel with access to relevant investigation materials, subject to applicable limitations. IP cases may include registration certificates, ownership documents, licensing agreements, expert reports, photographs of goods, seizure logs, purchase records, import documentation, witness statements and information identifying the supplier.
A rights holder’s expert report is evidence to be assessed, not an unquestionable legal conclusion. Relevant scrutiny includes the expert’s qualifications, the original reference products used, actual examination of seized goods, manufacturing variations and the correspondence between the findings and the precise statutory offence.
Defenses in Israeli Criminal IP Cases
A defense may concern the asserted right, whether it was protected or registered for the relevant goods, whether the accused conduct met the statutory definition, the evidence identifying the goods as infringing, required commercial purpose or extent of activity, or the accused’s state of mind.
Where police have seized digital material or merchandise, the legal scope of the search and the reliability of preservation procedures may also require examination. Allegations should be assessed separately for each protected right, statutory offence and group of products.
Coordinating Criminal and Civil Enforcement in Israel
Foreign brand owners may consider complaints to authorities alongside civil injunctions and damages proceedings. These are not interchangeable remedies: criminal prosecution is conducted by public authorities, whereas a civil claim addresses privately enforceable rights and appropriate remedies. Documentary accuracy and evidence of genuine counterfeiting are important in both.
For the civil framework, see Trademark Litigation in Israel and Copyright Infringement in Israel. Drori-Stav IP assists with intellectual property disputes and the legal issues arising from enforcement in Israel.
