A request for a preliminary injunction against Magic Water Dispensers was recently rejected by the court. A competing company sought to immediately stop the sale and marketing of Magic’s water dispensers, claiming that the products infringed its registered designs. However, the court refused to grant the injunction, noting that there were substantial visual differences between the products and that the water dispenser market includes a wide variety of models and design styles.
In the business world, few legal tools are as dramatic as a preliminary injunction. It is an exceptional remedy that can stop commercial activity almost overnight, even before the court has fully examined the merits of the claim.
This was the situation in a recent case, where a competing company filed a request with the Magistrates’ Court seeking a preliminary injunction against our client, Magic Marketing Water Dispensers Ltd. The request aimed to prevent Magic from marketing and selling two water dispenser models that were alleged to infringe the applicant’s registered designs.
Had the request been accepted, the consequences would have gone far beyond the legal dispute itself. It could have caused an immediate halt in sales, damage to the company’s reputation, disruption to its supply chain, and significant financial harm to Magic’s ongoing business activity.
Read Our Reviews
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!
At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!
The Defense: A Competitive and Saturated Market
The applicant, Tzalul Water Purification and Filtration Ltd., claimed that Magic was selling water dispensers that were highly similar to two of its registered designs, which featured an hourglass-like shape. Alongside a financial claim, the applicant also filed a request for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to prohibit Magic from continuing to market and sell the allegedly infringing products.
On behalf of Magic, attorney Raanan Ben Yishai and I argued that there were clear and meaningful differences between the products in their structure, design, and overall visual appearance. We also argued that the relevant market is highly competitive and saturated, with many water dispenser models sharing similar design characteristics.
In our position, the request for a preliminary injunction was not truly aimed at protecting a unique design, but rather at blocking legitimate competition in a market where similar design language is common. We further argued that stopping Magic’s sales would cause our client serious and disproportionate harm.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
The Court’s Decision: Significant Visual Differences Exist
The court examined the water dispensers according to the “eye test,” a standard test in design law. This test focuses on the overall visual impression created by the product in the eyes of an informed user, rather than conducting a technical comparison of isolated details.
After reviewing Magic’s water dispensers alongside the applicant’s registered designs, the court found that while there may be some similarity between the products, there were also significant differences. These included differences in the button panel, dispensing spout, product size, visible labeling, and other visual features.
As a result, the court held that, from the perspective of the informed user, the overall appearance of the products was not identical. The claim that Magic’s products were an obvious imitation of the applicant’s designs was not proven to the required preliminary standard at this stage of the proceedings.
Other Models in the Market Share an Hourglass-Like Shape
One of our central arguments was that the water dispenser market is a saturated market. In practical terms, this means that many products in the field share similar design elements, and therefore the scope of legal protection granted to any single design may be narrower.
As part of the proceedings, we presented evidence showing that additional water dispenser models from various manufacturers also feature an hourglass-like shape. Some of these products had already been available in the market for some time, including models sold by well-known brands.
The court accepted that there was preliminary evidence supporting the argument that this is a saturated market. It also accepted that other products in the market share a shape that is at least similar to the hourglass design. In addition, the court rejected the comparison made by the applicant to the fashion industry, noting that the markets are materially different in terms of consumer behavior, purchase frequency, and product characteristics.
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again! At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!Read Our Reviews
The Balance of Convenience Favored Magic
Another key argument we raised was that stopping the sale and marketing of Magic’s products could cause irreversible harm to the company. We argued that the request appeared to be an attempt to prevent fair competition in a market already filled with similar products.
The court accepted this position and held that the balance of convenience favored rejecting the request for a preliminary injunction.
Among other things, the court noted that the applicant had not presented sufficient evidence showing harm to its property rights or goodwill that could not later be compensated financially. By contrast, granting the injunction would have caused Magic serious harm, including damage to its business activity and to its freedom of occupation.
The court also noted that the request was not filed immediately, and that a certain delay in filing the request weakened the claim that urgent injunctive relief was necessary.
In light of all these considerations, the Magistrates’ Court rejected the request for a preliminary injunction.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
Conclusion: The Meaning of the Decision
This decision does not bring the entire legal dispute to an end, but it does provide an important early indication of the court’s approach. The ruling makes clear that a certain degree of similarity between products is not enough, on its own, to establish infringement of a registered design — especially in competitive markets where similar design language is a natural part of the industry.
The decision also reinforces the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and preserving fair competition.
In addition, the case highlights the importance of evidence and timing. A delay in filing an urgent request for a preliminary injunction may weaken the argument that immediate court intervention is necessary.
Ultimately, the rejection of the request allowed Magic to continue doing what it does best: marketing quality water dispensers at accessible prices.
Commercial disputes can place significant pressure on a business within days. Early legal guidance, a clear litigation strategy, and a strong understanding of intellectual property law can make the difference between a halted business operation and continued growth.
For professional legal advice regarding preliminary injunctions, registered designs, design infringement, or intellectual property litigation, you are welcome to contact our office.
