When an overseas design owner discovers a competing product being manufactured, imported or sold in Israel, a preliminary injunction may offer a way to stop the disputed activity before judgment. The remedy is not automatic. An injunction may protect a design proprietor against continuing sales and loss of market position, but it may also stop a distributor’s operations, strand inventory and disrupt a defendant’s business before infringement has been proved.
Israeli courts consider the prima facie right, evidence of infringement, urgency, balance of convenience and the financial undertakings supporting interim relief. The relevant framework is the Israeli Designs Law, 5777-2017, together with Regulations 94–100 of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018. An important preliminary distinction is whether the claim concerns a design registered under the Designs Law, an eligible unregistered design or an older design registration governed by the former Patents and Designs Ordinance.
A Preliminary Injunction Is Not the Same as a Final Injunction
Section 74 of the Designs Law provides for injunctive relief in an action for design infringement unless the court identifies grounds not to grant it. That is not a statutory entitlement to an interim order whenever an infringement claim is filed.
At the preliminary stage, Regulation 95 requires sufficient prima facie evidence of the claim and a showing that the measure is necessary. The court considers likely harm to each party, possible impact on third parties, alternative measures causing less harm, the applicant’s conduct and delay. An applicant with a registered right may nevertheless fail to establish a need to stop sales immediately.
For foreign companies, the practical distinction matters when deciding whether to seek an urgent application in parallel with the principal Israeli infringement lawsuit or focus on prompt determination of the case itself.
What Evidence Is Required to Obtain a Design Injunction?
The first question is what right exists. For a registered design, the applicant should produce current register details, evidence of its status and the complete set of registered representations. The relevant comparison is between the protected visual appearance and the accused product, rather than merely two photographs of competing commercial products.
Under Section 37, the issue is whether the accused product produces an overall impression that is not different for an informed user, taking account of the design freedom available in the product category. A comparison should address the registered views, relevant contours, proportions and visual features, and any broken lines or disclaimers limiting the claimed appearance.
Separate evidence is required of the defendant’s conduct. Dated offers for sale, online product listings, invoices, test purchases, packaging, import information and identifiable product samples may establish who manufactured, imported or marketed the accused article. Similarity alone does not establish that the particular respondent performed the prohibited commercial acts.
For unregistered designs, the claimant must additionally demonstrate qualifying protection, including the relevant first disclosure, the statutory requirement concerning commercial availability in Israel, the three-year protection period and evidence of copying. Section 61 concerns commercial manufacture through copying; Section 68 addresses specified downstream commercial activities subject to knowledge requirements. These must not be treated as identical to the registered-design infringement rules.
Does Registration Create a Presumption of Validity at the Interim Stage?
Section 31(c) makes an Israeli registration prima facie evidence of the registered design’s validity. The presumption is rebuttable. The respondent may present earlier publications, lack of novelty or individual character, a functional exclusion or another defect that could support cancellation under Section 48 and a defense under Section 70.
The difficulty at the urgent stage is deciding how far validity can be examined without turning the interim hearing into the full trial. Earlier Israeli decisions under the former Ordinance generally treated registration as prima facie evidence while recognizing that clear proof of an underlying defect could be relevant even before judgment.
In Diesel v. Hoodies, a legacy registered-design dispute, the court gave weight to registration where attacks on validity called for further factual examination. In Smart Trike v. Anonima Sahar, the court questioned whether the traditional narrow treatment of invalidity defenses in interim proceedings should always be maintained. These cases are useful for understanding the development of the law, but they should not replace the explicit validity presumption in Section 31(c), the defense in Section 70 or the present civil-procedure requirements.
Yonatan Drori and Yotam Werzansky-Orland discuss this issue in Designs and Industrial Designs Law (Hebrew, 2nd ed., 2019), Section 4.1.7.4, pp. 233–237.
Traxpoint v. WalkOut: The Importance of All Registered Views
In Traxpoint v. WalkOut, Haifa District Court, Civil Case 6091-02-20 (21 February 2020), a preliminary injunction concerning a registered design for a smart shopping cart was refused. The applicant had relied on partial images rather than presenting all the drawings in the registration, and the prima facie basis for infringement was insufficient.
The balance of convenience also weighed against shutting down a startup that marketed a single product. The court was deciding an interim application, not canceling the registration or finally determining the infringement action.
For an overseas design owner, the case illustrates why supplying Israeli counsel with the complete registration file and reliable images of the actual accused product can be more important than asserting a general resemblance between two products.
The Balance of Convenience: Continuing Sales Versus Closing a Business
An applicant should explain the damage expected if sales continue during litigation. Relevant circumstances may include a product’s short selling season, an imminent launch, erosion of price or market share, and the difficulty of restoring commercial position later through damages.
The respondent may provide evidence of inventory, investment in molds and machinery, employment, contracts with suppliers and retailers, and loss arising from interruption of operations. Unsupported estimates of harm carry less weight than dated business records.
The court can consider narrower relief directed at a specific product or transaction rather than a blanket prohibition on all of the defendant’s business activity.
In the Vacu Pak case concerning heart-shaped plastic packaging, an interim injunction was granted subject to financial security. In Smart Trike, an application concerning children’s tricycles was refused, with the court considering similarity and delay. The different outcomes demonstrate the fact-sensitive nature of the remedy.
In Tzalul v. Magic Water Bar Marketing, Bat Yam Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 58455-11-25 (2 February 2026), an interim request relating to competing water dispensers was refused. The court distinguished their general form from differences in the nozzle, controls and panel, and also considered evidence of similar products on the market.
Delay and Urgency in Filing an Israeli Injunction Application
Interim relief responds to a present need. A proprietor who knows of alleged infringement but delays substantially may find it difficult to explain why immediate restraint is now required.
In Zecharia v. Reimel, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Case 7460-10-24 (19 November 2024), an application involving clothing designs and trademarks was rejected in part against a background of delay between knowledge of competing activity and filing. The court also emphasized accurate identification of the allegedly infringing products and the need for a complete factual record. Smart Trike likewise involved consideration of an approximately nine-month delay following publication of a product catalogue.
No fixed period of delay automatically defeats every application. Time may have been used to identify the supplier, obtain professional comparisons or collect evidence. Those steps should be recorded and explained, rather than assumed to justify the interval without evidence.
Ex Parte Relief and an Application Before the Main Lawsuit
The ordinary rule is that interim applications are considered with both sides heard. Regulation 97 permits exceptional temporary relief without notice where specific facts establish a reasonable concern that notification or delay would frustrate the order or cause serious harm. The desire to surprise a competitor is not a sufficient reason by itself.
Regulation 95(c) permits interim relief before the principal claim is filed in appropriate circumstances. Where an order is made, the claim must normally be filed within seven days unless the court directs otherwise.
An applicant seeking an ex parte order must present material facts fairly, including facts that may weaken its position. The claim, evidence of infringement and practical terms of the proposed restraint should be prepared in advance.
Undertakings, Security and the Cost of an Incorrect Order
Regulation 96 generally requires an applicant’s undertaking to compensate the respondent for harm caused by an order that later proves unwarranted, together with security on terms set by the court. The undertaking may create substantial exposure, and the court may condition entry into force on deposits or guarantees.
In the Vacu Pak proceedings, the interim order was conditioned on, among other things, a director’s guarantee of NIS 300,000 and a deposit of NIS 200,000. These were case-specific terms, not standard security amounts.
The risk materialized in Dialit v. Harar, Tel Aviv District Court, Civil Cases 2081-08-07 and 32621-11-11 (24 March 2021). After an interim injunction preventing the marketing of diamond-polishing machinery was set aside following a period of approximately 11 years, the applicant was ordered to pay NIS 363,000 under its undertaking, in addition to expenses and legal costs. The compensation required an evidentiary basis; cancellation of an injunction did not dispense with proof of resulting loss.
How Should an Applicant or Defendant Prepare?
A claimant should combine the complete registration or statutory basis for unregistered rights, a reasoned visual comparison, proof tying the accused articles to the respondent and a supported explanation of commercial urgency. A respondent should test each element: scope of the protected representations, prior designs, whether the accused product is the product actually marketed, the statutory acts alleged, delay and the concrete economic consequences of stopping distribution.
In Portal v. Polybat, Central District Court, Civil Case 26995-11-25 (6 August 2026), the court refused interim relief involving a patent and two designs where much of the comparison concerned an experimental system rather than the product actually being marketed. The evidence did not sufficiently establish that the differences were visually immaterial.
Regulation 99 allows the court, where appropriate, to advance the hearing of the main claim instead of separately determining interim relief. That possibility should be considered where a rapid trial would be more proportionate.
Registered, Unregistered and Legacy Designs: Different Bases for the Same Interim Remedy
For a registered design under the 2017 Law, the central provisions are Sections 37, 66, 70 and 74. For an unregistered design, Sections 61, 67 and 68 govern different rights and proof requirements. A design registered under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance may be subject to transitional and legacy rules, even though an application for interim relief follows the current procedural regime.
The cases from the former Ordinance must therefore be identified as historical decisions rather than statements of the exact statutory test under the Designs Law.
For the main proceedings see Design Infringement Lawsuits in Israel. For connected analysis, see Proving Design Similarity, Defending Design Infringement, Design Infringement Damages and Design Litigation in Israel.
