After many years of expectations, effective as of September 1, 2010, Israel will finally join the Madrid Protocol. For a complete overview of the Madrid Protocol, what it is, how to use it, and what changes in the Israeli trademark system are going to take place, please refer to the special page in our website on this subject.

Legal 500 and PLC Which Lawyer?, two the world's leading research companies in the field of law firm ranking, have ranked Adin-Liss, Law Offices, which operates this website, as one of the leading IP firms in Israel. The firm's founding partners have also been acknowledged as leading and recommended in the IP field. This is the third consecutive year in which Legal 500 ranks Adin-Liss as a leading IP Firm. In this yeare's review, it was indicated that The team is ‘very knowledgeable and very thorough’

Chambers and Partners, one of the world's leading research companies in the field of law firm ranking, has ranked Adin-Liss, Law Offices, which operates this website, as one of the leading IP firms in Israel. The firm's founding partners, Dan Adin and Eran Liss, have also been acknowledged as leading individuals in the IP field. The review of firm is as follows: "Established in 2006, this small boutique is an emerging presence in the Israeli IP market and "is going in the right direction," say peers. The team recently acted for Land Rover in a trade mark dispute, and represents chemical manufacturer Bromine Compounds in a long-running patent case. Clients appreciate the "excellent service and high level of personal attention" they receive from partners Dan Adin and Eran Liss. "With some firms it's not always clear what is the next step - with Adin-Liss there's a clear route of action," clients say."
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/Editorial.aspx?ssid=35819

Duns100, the only Israeli ranking of law firms by the quality of their work according to various practice areas, ranked Adin-Liss, Law Offices, which operates this website, as one of the leading law firms in Israel in the field of intellectual property. This is a highly regarded ranking conducted by research company Dan & Bradstreet, after market research among clients and lawyers.

Today the Patent Office published a precedential decision of the Compensation and Royalties Committee under the Patent Act. In the decision, in the matter of Actelis Networks v. Ishay Ilani, the Committee ruled that an employee may require compensation for an employee's invention, unless the employment agreement specifically held otherwise. A "standard" employment agreement in which the employee transfers its rights in the invention to the employer is not sufficient, as there needs to be a specific reference to the employee's right for compensation under the Patent Act. The reasoning of this holding is that this right of the employee is a personal right for compensation towards the employer, which is not part of the proprietary rights in the invention – which are the rights which are usually waived by employees. This is a highly precedential decision which employers (especially in the hi-tech industry) must take into account while drafting employment agreement.

In a new circular issued today, the Israeli Patent Registrar, Dr. Meir Noam, announced of new guidelines whereby the Israeli PTO will grant priority to the examination of "green" patent applications, i.e. applications for inventions which promote the environment. An applicant who wishes to enjoy this benefit should enclose with the patent application a letter requesting the classification of the application as "green", and explaining to the PTO how the invention promotes the environment. Once considered "green", an application will be examined within 3 months (instead of 1-2 years in case of "standard" applications). Proprietors of patent applications which are currently pending, may also petition the PTO to classify their inventions as "green", in order to enjoy the priority in examination as well.

The Jerusalem Magistrates' Court ordered Google to disclose the details of a GMAIL user. The case concerned a defamation claim filed by a person who learned that a small local newspaper wrote libel about him. Upon searching for the people who were running the newspaper, it transpired that most of the contact details appearing in the newspaper (including names of people and a phone number) were false, and that the only detail which remained to be investigated was a GMAIL e-mail address. The person filed a claim for libel against an unknown company which was indicated in the newspaper, and petitioned the court in an interim motion to order Google to disclose any details (including IP addresses) it has on the owner of the GMAIL account (after Google refused to do so voluntarily). The court granted the motion, holding that there is no "right" to privacy for such GMAIL account holder, and that according to Google's Privacy Policy, it is entitled to disclose such details in scenarios such as this once. In addition, the court added that a newspaper must disclose accurate contact details of its owners, and may not be entitled to hide behind any alleged "right" to privacy. The court added that, in this respect, this case is even more clear-cut than cases concerning private internet users who write libel in websites. Motion 2403/09 Eyal Ariel v. Google; Decision dated July 2, 2009.

For the second consecutive year, Adin-Liss Law Offices, which operates this website, has been recommended by Legal500 (one of the world's leading research companies which rates the best law firms worldwide) as one of Israel's leading law firms in the field of intellectual property. Among others, it was stated that the firm 'has been building an excellent reputation since its formation in 2006', and that clients say that the firm is recommended for ‘dedication in handling cases’, ‘availability even out of normal working hours’, and ‘solid strategy in litigation’. Herein below is a link to the relevant section of the Legal500 website
http://www.legal500.com/c/israel/intellectual-property

The Israeli Patent Office has recently uploaded new online databases for patent and trademark searches. In the field of patents, there was a long felt need for such database, and the new database puts the Israeli Patent Office in line with modern Patent Offices worldwide. The new trademark database which was uploaded today offers more comprehensive search capabilities than its predecessor (such as search by name of trademark proprietor). The link to the patent database: http://www.ilpatsearch.justice.gov.il/UI/mainPage.aspx. The link to the trademark database: http://www.trademarks.justice.gov.il/TradeMarksWebSiteUI/TrademarksSearch/TrademarksSearch.aspx.

In December 1, 2008 the new Israeli Anti-Spam Act will come into force. The Act applies a stringent opt-in approach requiring advertisers to obtain the recipient's consent prior to sending commercial advertising. For a detailed analysis of the Act, please refer to the relevant page in the cyberlaw section of our website.

Adin-Liss Law Offices, which operates this website, has been recommended by Legal500 (one of the world's leading research companies which rates the best law firms worldwide) as one of Israel's leading law firms in the field of intellectual property. Among others, it was stated that clients say that the firm is ‘professional, efficient and provides fast and complete solutions’. Herein below is a link to the relevant section of the Legal500 website.
http://www.legal500.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1136&l5country_code=is&l5directory=lfe&Itemid=364#includes/get_content_page_l500.php&&&l5country_code=IS§ion_name=Intellectual%20property&workarea_title=Intellectual%20property

The Tel-Aviv District Court ruled that one shall mention the name of the original work's creator next to that work, when it is possible, and in such manner and scope that are customary in the specific field. However, the court emphasized that this owner's right is not absolute, and that the requirement to mention the name of the creator shall apply when it is proved to the court that it is customary to do so in the relevant field. The plaintiff, a graphic designer and a photographer, photographed kitchenware which were published in a catalogue produced for the housewares company, "Soltam Radad", but his name wasn't mentioned in the catalogue. He contended that the fact that his name was not mentioned, constitutes a violation of his "moral right", under section 4a(1) of the Copyright Act. The court held that the burden to prove that in the specific field that both sides are active in, the photographer's name should be mentioned – lies upon the plaintiff. The court ruled that in such circumstances, whereby the evidences are equivocal, the plaintiff failed to prove that in the relevant field it is customary to mention the photographer's name. Therefore, the claim was denied. Following is a link to the decision
http://info1.court.gov.il/Prod03/ManamHTML4.nsf/48FD1795AE4AAED4422573EE0055A780/$FILE/CB0AE4BAE3F19DCA422573CB0040F88C.html?OpenElement

The Deputy Patent Registrar has recently awarded a precedential amount of NIS 120,000, considering the actual costs that were incurred by the winning party. The proceedings refer to an opposition filed by "Teva" to a patent application of "Pfizer". Shortly after "Teva" submitted its pleading, "Pfizer" withdrew the application. The Deputy Patent Registrar emphasized that once a party withdraws the proceedings, he shall pay the expenses of the other side, regardless of the cause for the withdrawal. The Deputy Patent Registrar interpreted Section 162(b) of the Israeli Patent Act and held that the use of the words "reasonable costs" does not deprive the authority from ruling realistic costs. He added that the term "reasonable costs" shows the need to test the reasonableness of the winning party's costs, before awarding them. He also held that awarding realistic costs, requires the winning party to prove them. In this case, "Teva" presented invoices for professional services. The Deputy Patent Registrar awarded costs according to these invoices, and indicated that there was no unusual behavior of either side, that should have influenced his ruling. This is an extremely important and precedential ruling, since the amount of the awarded costs is significantly higher than the costs which are usually awarded in legal proceedings (and also in patent matters). This is, especially so considering the fact that the patent applicant withdrew the application at an early stage of the proceeding (right after the opponent submitted its pleading). Following is a link to the decision
http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A70FAC3A-B141-4781-822F-9836534D924B/0/133957.pdf

The Tel-Aviv District Court rejected the appeal of Isha'ayahu Rotter, the owner and operator of the forums website "Rotter", on the Magistrate's Court judgment ordering him to pay the photographer Shlomi Buchacho NIS 50,000 damages, for copyright infringement in 5 of his photographs that were published in the website "Rotter". Those photographs were taken from the website "walla!" without Buchacho's permission and without payment. Rotter tried to rely on section 8 of the Copyright Act and contended that the photos were published in the website "walla!" without the name of the photographer or any warning next to them which limits the use in them. According to Rotter, an innocent surfer could not have known whether the photos were protected by copyright. The court ruled that in this case Rotter in not an "innocent surfer", but a surfer who is the owner of a website who makes his living from the stories and photos from other websites. The court also ruled that even had Rotter been an "innocent surfer", the fact that he didn't know about the copyright in the photos does not entitle him to use the photos without permission. As to the amount of damages, the court held that the photographer was entitled to the minimum statutory damages available under the Copyright Ordinance, and was not required to prove actual damage after choosing the statutory damages route. Following is a link to the case (in Hebrew).
http://info1.court.gov.il/Prod03/ManamHTML4.nsf/E10293ECBE296D31422573B00055DF00/$FILE/C19E26C4294C806C4225739B00240622.html?OpenElement

The Israeli Parliament has recently legislated the Communication Data Act, which is an amendment to the Criminal Procedure laws. The Act is supposed to enable the police to combat crime more efficiently by receiving information regarding communications, telephones and internet, such as destination calls and IP addresses. The Act sets 3 manners for the police to receive the data: by a court order, by a high ranked police officer (in urgent cases), and by a database which would be passed to the police. In order to receive a court order, the police shall submit to the court various documents, such as whether the person investigated enjoys privilege by law (or case law) due to his profession (- a psychologist, a lawyer, a doctor or a priest) and the history of previous requests. The court has ruled in the past that this privilege shall protect also journalists. The second manner, which concerns to serious crimes, enables high ranked police officers to receive the database without any delay or a court order, whenever the information is required in order to save life, prevent crimes and find criminals. The third manner is the database: an authorized police officer can demand a database from the telecommunication companies. It includes information for identifying a client of one of these companies, identifying details of a SIM card of a cellular phone, etc. The new Act raises serious concerns as to damaging the right of privacy, and as to misuse of such delicate information about the entire Israeli population. These concerns created a serious debate in the connection with the enactment of the Act. Following is a link to the version of the Act as it passed in the Israeli Parliament.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/privatelaw/data/17/3/253_3_2.rtf

Recently the Israeli Parliament legislated a new Copyright Act, which replaces The Copyright Act, 1911, and the Copyright Ordinance, 1924. Below there is a link to the act in hebrew
http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/32331F27-82B1-4191-AE64-7F3A1024892B/18036/2119.pdf

In a most important decision, the Jerusalem District Court, sitting as the Board of Appeal on a decision of the Patent Registrar, overturned the Registrar's decision and upheld the validity of the JAFFA Appellation of Origin. The details of the case are as follows: a few years ago the Plants Council granted a license to South African manufacturers of citrus fruits to market citrus fruits to the UK under the mark JAFFA. When the Israeli Patent Registrar was requested to renew the JAFFA Appellation of Origin, he decided that it should be revoked due to this license. The Registrar held that if a citrus fruit grown in South Africa meets the criteria of the Plants Council to be marketed under the mark JAFF, this means that the connection between the Appellation of Origin JAFFA and the unique qualities of the fruit which is grown in Israel has been lost. The Board of Appeal overturned this holding and ruled that the fact that the Plants Council commercialized its trademark rights in the mark JAFFA in countries which are not parties to the Lisbon treaty (for the protection of Appellation of Origin) does not impinge on the validity of JAFFA as an appellation of origin. The South African fruit was not identical to the Israeli fruit and the mere granting of the license to the South African manufacturers should not invalidate the Appellation of Origin. The same applies to the fact the the Plants Council granted a license to market a Dutch yogurt under the mark JAFFA.

A US Court of Appeals overturned a District Court decision, and ruled that Google's display of thumbnail images of Perfect 10's porn photos does not constitute copyright infringement. The court ruled that Google enjoys the "fair use" defense against the claim for direct copyright infringement. However, the court left an "open" question as to Google's potential liability for contributory copyright infringement, which shall be factually determined by the lower court. Following is a link to the decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE8297F56287C0BC882572DC007DACC6/$file/0655405.pdf?openelement

The Nazereth District Court ordered an Israeli CD factory to pay over 6 million NIS (about US$ 1.5 million) for copying CD "masters" and manufacturing counterfeit CD's therefrom. The claim was filed by the largest worldwide record labels in 1999. The defendants admitted the wrongdoing and the court only had to decide about the amount of damages. The court ruled that there were 580 separate infringements and awarded the plaintiffs with the minimum amount of statutory damages for each infringement (10,000 NIS), plus attorney's fees and costs. which amount to more than 6 million NIS. This is one of the most significant amounts of damages awarded in IP cases in Israel ever.

The Haifa District Court gave an important decision explaining the criteria for ordering an ISP to disclose the identity of an end user who published dafamatory statements in talkbacks and forums. After last year's ruling of Justice Michal Agmon-Gonen of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court in the matter of John Doe, this is the most comprehensive judgment given on this subject by an Israeli court. The court deviated from the previous case law and held that in order to establish a motion to order an ISP to disclose the identity of a user, the plaintiff does not have to prove prima facie criminal liability and an intent to harm. However, the plaintiff is required to prove an "extra element" (besides a civil cause of action for libel) to support the motion for disclosure of identity. Such extra element can be influenced by the nature of the statement (i.e. more tendency to expose a user who hurt a private person rather than a political figure), good winning chances for the plaintiff, public interest in matters pertaining to the plaintiff and the pubilcation of the statements, the circumstances of the publication, the scope of damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of the defamatory statement, etc. Following is a link to the judgment (in Hebrew).
http://info1.court.gov.il/Prod03/ManamHTML4.nsf/DFA2F4FBD9E84AF8422572C50055A811/$FILE/7BB5417FD8042A96422572BC0024068B.html?OpenElement