In Nir Practical Solutions Ltd. and Others v. Harsa Studio – Sanitary Ware Manufacturers Ltd. and Others, Tel Aviv Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 75966-12-25, Application No. 11 (24 September 2026), Judge Raz Navon permitted the Israeli Registrar of Designs to examine a cancellation application concerning registered design No. 67929, notwithstanding a pending design infringement lawsuit. The decision applied Section 109(a) of Israel’s Designs Law, 5777-2017. It did not cancel the design or determine whether infringement had occurred.
The Sink-Trap Design and Parallel Proceedings
Nir Practical Solutions and Nir Nahum filed an infringement claim seeking NIS 500,000, an account of profits and mandatory relief. The claim concerned registered design No. 67929 for a combined sink trap for an American-style sink incorporating a dishwasher connection. The claimants also asserted unregistered design rights in a flexible pipe.
The defendants, including Harsa Studio companies, denied infringement. In February 2026, Harsa applied to the Israel Patent Office to cancel registration of the sink-trap design. Since court proceedings involving that design were already pending, the Registrar could not proceed with the cancellation request without leave of the court.
The defendants sought permission on the basis that examination of validity by the specialist authority could narrow or resolve the dispute. The claimants argued that validity could be decided within the infringement lawsuit, and that a separate cancellation proceeding risked duplication, tactical fragmentation and delay.
Section 109(a): When Can the Registrar Hear a Cancellation Application During Litigation?
Section 48 of the Designs Law permits a person other than the registered proprietor to seek cancellation on the statutory grounds. Under Section 109(a), once court proceedings concerning infringement or cancellation of the same registered design are pending, the Registrar may not hear the cancellation application without permission from the court.
The rule allocates procedural control between the court and the Registrar rather than automatically depriving either body of jurisdiction. Section 70(a) also permits a defendant in an infringement action to raise grounds that could justify cancellation, with corresponding powers for the court where appropriate.
Consequently, a defendant cannot force parallel proceedings by filing at the ILPO alone. The court must assess whether allowing the Registrar to proceed is appropriate in the circumstances.
Why the Court Granted Permission
The infringement lawsuit remained at an early stage. No substantive pretrial hearing had occurred, evidence had not been filed and no witnesses had been examined on the central issues. A hearing concerning a consensual interim injunction had dealt with alleged contempt of court rather than the merits of infringement.
The parties had agreed to temporary injunctive relief restricting distribution of the disputed products, without the defendants admitting infringement. The court regarded this arrangement as reducing concerns that separate validity proceedings would allow potentially infringing sales to continue unchecked.
Harsa’s cancellation application was already pending before the ILPO. It asserted lack of novelty and individual character by reference to earlier sink-trap publications, including international patent applications and publications allegedly originating with the design proprietor. It also alleged that aspects of the appearance were dictated by technical function.
The court considered the specialist authority’s experience with comparing registered designs, prior publications, technical features and patent documents relevant to the procedural decision. It did not accept those asserted grounds as established facts.
Permission to Proceed Is Not a Finding of Invalidity
The court authorized the Registrar to hear and determine the cancellation application against design No. 67929. It did not find that earlier patent publications anticipated the design, that its functional features made it unregistrable, or that the defendants’ products infringed either the registered design or the alleged unregistered design. Nor did the consensual injunction constitute an admission of liability.
For foreign counsel defending an Israeli design infringement claim, the case illustrates a procedural option: where there is a substantive cancellation challenge and the civil case is still at an early stage, an application for leave under Section 109(a) may permit the Registrar to decide validity in parallel. The stage of the lawsuit, existing interim measures, the substance of the validity grounds and the benefits of specialist examination may all matter.
See also Cancellation of a Registered Design in Israel and Design Infringement Lawsuits in Israel.
