A trademark infringement lawsuit in Israel can stop unauthorized use of a brand name or logo, prevent marketing of offending goods and, where supported by evidence, provide monetary relief. But not every similarity between two names or product packages amounts to infringement. Counsel must first identify the enforceable Israeli trademark, the actual commercial use, the applicable statutory ground and the remedy sought.
This guide addresses civil trademark litigation before Israeli courts, including preparation of evidence, court jurisdiction, interim measures and monetary claims. It is distinct from opposition to an accepted trademark application or cancellation of a registered mark before the Registrar of Trademarks. For foreign businesses and instructing counsel, obtaining current Israeli registry information and investigating the defendant’s actual activities are essential preliminary steps.
When Does Use of a Trademark Constitute Infringement in Israel?
Section 46 of the Israeli Trademarks Ordinance [New Version], 5732-1972, confers on a registered proprietor exclusive rights to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, subject to relevant conditions. The definition of infringement in Section 1 includes unauthorized use of a registered mark or a confusingly similar sign in the legally specified contexts and use of the registered mark in advertising of goods of the relevant description.
Sale of counterfeit shoes bearing a shoe manufacturer’s registered logo may present a straightforward claim of unauthorized use. A business using a similar name requires closer examination of the signs, the covered goods or services and the commercial circumstances. The class number alone is not conclusive of the protected scope; the actual specification and the relationship between the goods or services must be considered.
Sections 46A and 57 provide additional rules concerning well-known trademarks. A well-known mark registered in Israel may enjoy protection in certain circumstances concerning goods of a different description, where the use indicates a connection to the proprietor and is likely to harm its interests. A well-known mark not registered locally can also enjoy specified protection. These are not unrestricted rights in every possible product category.
How Is Confusing Similarity Evaluated?
Where confusing similarity is legally relevant, Israeli courts apply what is commonly called the triple test: appearance and sound, the nature of the goods and relevant customers, and other circumstances and common sense. The comparison is not a percentage count of matching letters or a mechanical juxtaposition of two logos.
The analysis also depends on the statutory infringement limb. For use of an identical registered mark in the relevant circumstances, separate proof of consumer confusion is not necessarily required. For a similar mark, the likelihood of confusion ordinarily calls for analysis of appearance, sound, market context and consumers.
In Adidas Salomon AG v. Yassin, Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 563/11 (27 August 2012), a claim concerning Adidas’ three stripes and shoes bearing four stripes failed on the facts. Similar visual elements did not establish infringement in the particular circumstances. The decision is not a general permission to copy recognizable branding but illustrates the significance of the precise signs and legal conditions.
For evidence, market circumstances and consumer surveys, see Proving Likelihood of Confusion in Israel.
Can a Claim Be Filed Without a Registered Israeli Trademark?
Section 57 establishes who can sue for infringement under the Trademarks Ordinance, including proprietors of registered trademarks and, under the relevant provisions, well-known marks. A business using an ordinary unregistered sign should not assume it possesses the same statutory infringement claim as a registered owner.
Where the sign has acquired goodwill in Israel, the proprietor may instead, or additionally, have a cause of action for passing off under Section 1 of the Commercial Torts Law, 5759-1999. That cause of action generally requires proof of goodwill and likely confusion or misrepresentation regarding commercial origin.
Section 59(b) of the Trademarks Ordinance limits the infringement remedy concerning a well-known unregistered mark under that route to an injunction. Claims under other statutes have their own elements and remedies. See Passing Off Lawsuits in Israel.
Verify the Israeli Trademark Before Filing
Obtain the registered representation, proprietor’s identity, registration status, specification of goods and services and any limitations, conditions or disclaimers. The official Israeli Trademark Search provides a starting point for checking the relevant entries.
Section 64 makes the registered ownership prima facie evidence of the validity of registration. It does not prove that a defendant sold a particular article, used a mark in a specified advertisement or performed any other prohibited act. Ownership and infringement should be supported through separate evidence.
For an international portfolio, determine whether the claimant is the actual Israeli proprietor, an authorized user or another group entity. Agreements concerning distribution or licensing may affect standing and the scope of the permission relied upon.
Collect Evidence of Actual Infringing Conduct
Before the first demand letter, document the sign as used on the defendant’s products, packaging, advertising, website or business premises. For online uses, preserve the URL, date, displayed content, seller identity and the path by which customers reach the disputed offer. For physical goods, obtain test purchases or samples, packaging, receipts and evidence of the manufacturer, importer and retailer.
Keep separate the evidence of commercial use from the evidence needed to establish that the goods are counterfeit. In Otter Products LLC v. Fixphone, Nazareth District Court, Civil Case 71798-06-23 (26 October 2026), the court found possession of branded-looking cases but held that the claimant had not proved their counterfeit nature. The case illustrates the importance of first-hand and technically reliable authentication evidence. See the case analysis.
Where confusion is alleged, reliable customer complaints, purchase practices, market evidence and potentially a professionally designed survey may be relevant. A survey is not compulsory in every case, and its value depends on the question and research method.
Documents concerning profits and loss should be collected independently from the evidence of infringement. Establishing use of a confusing mark does not automatically establish the financial amount recoverable.
Must a Cease-and-Desist Letter Be Sent Before Litigation?
Israeli law does not impose a general statutory obligation to send a warning letter before filing every trademark infringement action. A properly prepared letter can nonetheless give the accused business an opportunity to stop the use, clarify the supply chain or resolve the dispute without court proceedings.
In Katz v. Rotman, Central District Court, Civil Case 7648-09-08 (8 July 2010), a copyright case, the court discussed why giving a potential defendant a chance to address an alleged wrong may affect good faith and costs in the particular circumstances. The decision should not be recast as creating a mandatory warning requirement for all trademark claims.
There are situations where warning the defendant could compromise an investigation, enable destruction or concealment of evidence, or frustrate urgently needed protection. The timing and content of correspondence should follow the factual risks. See Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letters in Israel.
Which Israeli Court Will Hear the Trademark Lawsuit?
Court jurisdiction depends in part on the relief sought. A claim for a permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement will generally be brought before an Israeli District Court. A monetary-only claim may fall within Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction according to its amount and the governing jurisdictional rules.
Section 40(4) of Israel’s Courts Law permits a District Court, subject to its conditions, to hear a related monetary intellectual property claim alongside a claim within its jurisdiction. As a result, the decision whether to seek an injunction, monetary damages or both can affect forum selection and how the proceeding is structured.
Foreign rights holders should identify the proposed defendants, their presence and conduct in Israel, the sales and import routes, and whether a foreign supplier or Israeli distributor is the proper defendant for the alleged act.
What Should the Statement of Claim Establish?
The pleading should identify the protected Israeli right and who may enforce it; describe the accused sign and commercial acts; specify the applicable infringement ground; and explain the relief requested. Product images, advertisements, correspondence, purchase records and registration documents should be organized to establish these separate components.
A generic assertion that competing brands look alike is not a sufficiently developed infringement case. Where a mark is similar rather than identical, the pleading should identify the relevant consumers and explain the risk of confusion. Where counterfeit goods are alleged, their identification and the supply chain are material.
If the claim includes passing off, goodwill and deception must be addressed separately. If the proprietor seeks financial relief, the factual foundation for loss or another monetary route must be specified.
When Is a Preliminary Injunction Appropriate?
Where alleged use continues during the proceedings, a proprietor may seek a preliminary injunction under the Israeli Civil Procedure Regulations. Regulation 95 requires prima facie support for the action and proof of necessity, together with consideration of the balance of convenience, less harmful alternatives, delay and good faith.
The court will consider whether the order should restrain a particular mark on identified goods or stop broader marketing activity. An ex parte order is exceptional under Regulation 97; security and undertakings may be required under Regulation 96. Where relief is ordered before the main action, the main claim generally must be filed within seven days unless the court determines otherwise.
An interim order does not establish final infringement liability. For conditions, evidence, security and Israeli cases, see Preliminary Trademark Injunctions in Israel.
How Does the Case Proceed After Filing?
The defendant responds to the asserted rights, acts, factual allegations and remedies. Some disputes concern the identity of the seller or source of the goods; others concern similarity, consumer perception, licensing history or the actual validity and scope of the trademark registration.
The evidentiary process can involve disclosure of sales records, invoices and supplier documents, witness affidavits, cross-examination and appropriate expert testimony. Section 58 of the Trademarks Ordinance allows evidence of trade usage and the appearance of goods and signs lawfully used by others in the trade.
Expert surveys may help in suitable disputes but do not replace the legal test. Evidence should reflect the market conditions in Israel and the relevant consumers rather than a hypothetical global market. At the monetary stage, accounting records and the relationship between sales and the alleged wrongful use may become as important as the comparison of marks.
What Injunctions and Other Remedies Can Be Ordered?
Section 59 of the Trademarks Ordinance provides for injunctions, damages and other relief within the court’s powers. Section 59A addresses, subject to its conditions, remedies concerning infringing assets, including destruction or other appropriate disposition.
The final order should identify the acts that are actually prohibited. A finding that a particular label infringes does not justify an imprecise ban on every reference to the proprietor’s brand. Where physical goods are involved, the court may consider suitable measures directed at the offending stock.
Proof of infringement and the financial remedy remain distinct. Under the Trademarks Ordinance, a fixed statutory award without proof of loss does not follow automatically from registered-mark infringement. In appropriate cases loss may be proved or reasonably estimated, or other monetary remedies may be available on their own legal basis.
Where passing off is established, Section 13 of the Commercial Torts Law permits up to NIS 100,000 without proof of loss for qualifying wrongs, subject to its conditions and the single-course-of-acts rule. Such compensation is not available merely because the claimant has a registration.
In the Israeli Sony v. Matrix proceedings (judgment of 25 October 2023), one registered-mark infringement was established but damages were refused because the financial foundation was insufficient. See Trademark Infringement Damages in Israel.
What Defenses Can Be Raised?
The defendant may argue that the allegedly infringing sign is not confusingly similar where that is an element of the claim, the goods are outside the relevant protected scope, use was authorized, or the goods are genuine and were lawfully obtained through parallel importation.
Section 47 of the Trademarks Ordinance permits specified bona fide use of a person’s name, a business name, geographic indications and truthful descriptions of the nature or quality of goods. Mentioning a manufacturer to identify compatible products or genuine goods can be legitimate in context. The defense is not a blanket licence to imply official sponsorship or affiliation.
In Swissa v. Tommy Hilfiger, Israeli Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 7629/12, the Court distinguished lawful parallel importation of genuine branded goods from use of the mark that misleads the public into believing the seller is sponsored or officially authorized.
Defendants may also examine validity. Section 64’s registration presumption is rebuttable; claims that a sign was registered despite lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness or bad faith require a proper factual and statutory basis. A separate challenge to the register may be brought under Sections 38, 39 or 41, depending on the grounds. The filing of such a challenge does not itself cancel the registration or automatically decide the civil infringement suit.
Other Causes of Action and Individual Defendants
A trademark lawsuit may include passing off or other civil causes of action, but each requires proof of its own elements. Remedies must not be duplicated for the same harm simply because more than one cause of action was pleaded.
Where the alleged infringer is a company, personal liability of its directors or shareholders requires proof of the individual’s role, not merely their status. See Personal Liability for Trademark Infringement in Israel.
The business history may be critical: a former distributor may have made authorized use for many years, with the controversy arising only after termination of a licence. The dates and terms of authorization must be examined before labeling all historic conduct infringing.
Preparing an Israeli Trademark Action for Foreign Counsel
At the outset, establish the current registered rights, obtain a reliable record of the challenged conduct, identify the defendants and the Israeli commercial connection, preserve necessary financial evidence, and decide whether rapid injunctive relief or final monetary recovery is the main objective.
The distinction between registration, passing off, infringement, invalidity and remedies should guide the work. The trademark proprietor’s evidence should tell a coherent factual story capable of supporting each claimed cause of action rather than merely present similar logos.
For a broader overview see Trademark Infringement Litigation in Israel: A Guide for Foreign Counsel. For contentious representation by local counsel see Drori Stav IP’s Trademark Litigation Practice. The principal statutory framework is the Trademarks Ordinance, including Sections 1, 46–47, 57–59A and 64.
