In Galil Profiles Ltd. v. Belco LED Ltd., Krayot Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 45211-01-24 (18 October 2026), Judge Moti Cohen partially upheld a claim for infringement of registered Design No. 61939 concerning an aluminum wall-cladding profile. The Court found that Belco had sold a profile imitating the protected design and that the elements of passing off had also been established. Although the claimant failed to substantiate its alleged pecuniary loss, the Court awarded NIS 50,000 in total compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee and NIS 12,000 in legal fees.
The case is relevant to foreign manufacturers and Israeli distributors of industrial components because it addresses the identification of infringing stock, the relevance of product cross-sections and the monetary consequences of a design claim governed by Israel’s former Patents and Designs Ordinance.
The Registered Aluminum Profile and the Parties’ Commercial Relationship
Galil Profiles registered the design in 2018 for a structural aluminum profile used as the base of a wall-cladding system. The profile featured a head-like arrow form and protruding teeth. For several years, Galil supplied the profile to Belco LED, until their commercial relationship ended in 2021.
Belco subsequently worked with another manufacturer on an alternative profile known as the “Palm Tree” profile (Etz HaDekel). Galil alleged that Belco continued to market a separate profile reproducing the appearance of its registered design. Its evidence included samples acquired by a private investigator and a customer.
Belco maintained that the relevant goods consisted of original Galil stock obtained lawfully, products purchased from a third party or its independently developed new profile. The Court examined the different product types separately.
The Eye Test: Product Appearance and Technical Function
The Court applied the visual assessment developed for registered designs under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance, drawing on Mipromal Jerusalem Industries Ltd. v. Klil Industries Ltd., Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 7125/98, and Radius v. All Trade, Petah Tikva Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 16155-06-19 (3 January 2021).
The relevant comparison concerned the appearance of the registered aluminum profile and the article proved to have been sold. The Court found the accused profile to be an imitation of the protected design. Its technical purpose did not eliminate the significance of the profile’s visual appearance.
The Court also assessed passing off separately and found its elements established in relation to the marketing of the copied profile. The inquiry into misleading commercial origin was distinct from the comparison of the registered design and the accused article.
The Original-Inventory Defense and Problems in the Supply-Chain Evidence
Belco argued that the goods found in its possession came from legitimate inventory acquired from Galil or from third-party purchases. Its explanations of the source of the goods changed during testimony. One version referred to purchases from a company called Kol Profil; a later version described unfinished original stock allegedly sent by Galil in error.
The missing and inconsistent records concerning supplier identity, quantities and deliveries weakened the defense that the disputed sales involved only original, previously acquired goods. The Court focused on the specific products whose sale was proved rather than attributing identical findings to Belco’s separately developed Palm Tree profile.
For distributors handling industrial components, invoices, inventory records, supplier documents and identifiable batches are central to proving provenance. For the rights holder, physical specimens and evidence of the actual sale establish the connection between the accused article and the defendant.
NIS 50,000 Awarded Despite Failure to Prove Lost Profits
Galil sought substantial compensation for lost profits. It had not submitted an appropriate accounting opinion or reliable financial documentation for the claimed loss, and significant parts of the calculation were introduced only in closing arguments. The Court rejected the monetary claim to the extent it depended on proof of that unsubstantiated loss.
The Court then considered compensation without proof of actual loss, including the approach discussed in Ronit Diglei Umot Ltd. v. Shatan, Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 3853/11, and the statutory remedy for passing off under Israel’s Commercial Torts Law. It awarded one combined sum of NIS 50,000 for the course of conduct, taking into account the infringement period and the volume of orders reflected by the evidence.
The Court also ordered reimbursement of the court fee and legal fees of NIS 12,000. It declined the requested order permitting entry into premises, having regard among other matters to the removal of the relevant products and advertising and the development of the alternative profile.
Why the Former Designs Regime Matters to the Result
The application for Design No. 61939 was filed before the 2017 Designs Law took effect. The applicable transitional provisions therefore led the Court to apply the former designs regime. The NIS 50,000 award also involved the established passing-off claim.
Under the later Designs Law, Section 75 expressly regulates statutory compensation for infringement of rights governed by that statute. The basis of recovery in Galil Profiles v. Belco LED should be analyzed under the older legal framework and the particular additional cause of action established in the case.
For the modern remedies framework see Design Infringement Damages in Israel.
A Separate Dispute Over Galil Profiles and Design No. 62217
Galil Profiles was involved in another proceeding concerning aluminum profiles. In a decision of 22 April 2020, the Israeli Patent Office rejected Galil’s application to cancel Design No. 62217, owned by Raanana Aluminum Products Ltd., because the profiles’ cross-sections exhibited legally significant visual differences.
That matter concerned a different design and a different opponent. Its analysis of the professional buyer and the aluminum-profile cross-section is discussed in Galil Profiles v. Raanana Aluminum: Cancellation of Design No. 62217.
Case reference: Galil Profiles Ltd. v. Belco LED Ltd., Krayot Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 45211-01-24, 18 October 2026, Judge Moti Cohen. For related advice on industrial components, see Registered Designs for Building Components in Israel and Design Litigation in Israel.
