Intellectual Property Law and Practice in Israel, Eran Liss, Dan Adin, Oxford University Press, 2012 Book Review and Critical Commentary by Mehmet Artemel, Bogazici University, Istanbul Reviewer’s notes: The following book review was first published at IPso Jure - intellectual property blog (http://ipso-jure.blogspot.com) on Wednesday, 24th October 2012 (http://ipso-jure.blogspot.com/2012/10/guest-book-review-intellectual-property.html) An excerpt from the following review has subsequently been quoted by Oxford University Press and may be seen under “Reviews and Awards” on the publishers website at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/intellectual-property-law-and-practice-in-israel-9780199917419?cc=tr&lang=en&#.UEydbLJlTDQ

1. ~ 1 ~
Intellectual Property Law and Practice in Israel,
Eran Liss, Dan Adin, Oxford University Press, 2012
Book Review and Critical Commentary
by Mehmet Artemel, Bogazici University, Istanbul
Reviewer’s notes:
 The following book review was first published at IPso
Jure - intellectual property blog (http://ipso-
jure.blogspot.com) on Wednesday, 24
th
October 2012
(http://ipso-jure.blogspot.com/2012/10/guest-book-
review-intellectual-property.html)
 An excerpt from the following review has subsequently
been quoted by Oxford University Press and may be
seen under “Reviews and Awards” on the publishers
website at:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/intellectual-
property-law-and-practice-in-israel-
9780199917419?cc=tr&lang=en&#.UEydbLJlTDQ
**********

2. ~ 2 ~
Intellectual Property Law and Practice in Israel, Eran Liss, Dan
Adin, Oxford University Press, 2012
Book review by Mehmet Artemel, Bogazici University, Istanbul
The book is published by Oxford University Press with the
following particulars: OUP USA, 676 pages, 235x156mm,
ISBN13 978-0-19-991741-9 / ISBN10: 0-19-991741-8;
Paperback; 31 May 2012.
Existing reviews and references:
To the best of this reviewer’s knowledge, save for the
publishers’ blurb
(http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/?view=usa&ci=97801999
17419;
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199917419.do#.UEydbLJlTDQ) and
the promotional message on the website of the authors’ firm,
Adin-Liss Law Offices
(http://www.copyright.co.il/Intellectual_Property_Law_and_Practice_in_Israel_
book), commentaries hitherto made on the book have been
located in the following sources:

3. ~ 3 ~
 On the back cover; by Dr. Amir H. Khoury, Senior
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University and
Professor Jeremy Phillips, Editor, Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice.
 On The IPKat weblog by Jeremy Phillips at
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/04/friday-fantasies-i.html
 On The IP Factor weblog by Dr. Michael Factor, in
chronological order, at
http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2012/04/29/brand-new-reference-work-on-
intellectual-property-law-and-practice-in-israel/ (posted on 29
April 2012), http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/book-reviews/ (posted on
15 July 2012 and also quoted in its entirety on 16 July
2012 at http://miniewatts.blogspot.com/2012/07/book-review-
intellectual-property-law.html), and
http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2012/07/22/intellectual-property-in-israel-law-
practice-the-book-is-launched/ (posted on 22 July 2012).
Scope and breadth:
A page count of each one of the 11 chapters attests to the
authors’ contention that “[t]his book provides a comprehensive
view of the laws and case law in the entire range of intellectual
property laws in Israel” (p. xxiii, Preface).
Perhaps, the most striking first impression one gets from a
cursory flip through the book before undertaking a detailed
reading of this hefty volume is the scope and comprehensive
nature of the contents. Indeed, as noted by all three eminent
reviewers, the book’s “length reflects its comprehensiveness”
(Michael Factor), while “the breadth of coverage and depth of
analysis” (Amir Khoury) gives one the impression that the
authors “have written the definitive text” (Jeremy Phillips).

4. ~ 4 ~
The book as the authors put it “includes very detailed chapters
on the three main branches of intellectual property laws:
patent, trademark, and copyright laws” (p. xxiii, Preface).
Perhaps at the expense of an imbalance between chapter
lengths, the above three areas are covered in minutiae. While
chapter 2 on “Patents”, chapter 4 on “Trademarks and Passing
Off”, and chapter 5 on “Copyright” span 134, 164 and 140
pages, respectively, the length of the remaining substantive
chapters, range between a minimum of 3 pages (“Introduction
to the Israeli Legal System”, chapter 1) and 58 pages (“Major
Issues in the Information Technology Context”, chapter 9). In
view of its brevity, it might have been an idea not to have
numbered the 3-page synopsis on the Israeli legal system, as
chapter 1, but perhaps simply to have presented it as a
condensed overview on a par with the Preface.
Chapter headings and subject-matters
The authors have achieved a remarkable feat by managing to
cover in a single volume the entire spectrum of IP fields as well
as complementary rights and obligations under chapter 6
(“Unjust Enrichment”) and chapter 7 (“Trade secrets”).
Moreover, having incorporated two sector-specific chapters on
IT and the Pharmaceutical industries, in both of which Israel
boasts an impressive performance, the authors provide a rare
insight into the dynamics of IP as they feature within the
context of these sectors in the country. One is almost left
wishing that there could have been room for the authors to
cover other specialist industries, such as biotechnology and
nanotechnology in which Israel equally excels or perhaps
technology transfer and commercialisation of R&D output
within the framework of industry and academia collaborations,
where Israeli success stories enjoy worldwide acclaim.

5. ~ 5 ~
“Related Rights”, however, as a choice of title for chapter 8,
where seemingly incongruous areas including “Appellation of
Origin” and “Geographical Indications” (sections 8.1 and 8.2,
respectively), “Plant Breeders’ Rights (section 8.3), “Right of
Publicity” (section 8.4) and “Unfair Intervention” (section 8.5)
have been examined, could possibly occasion slight confusion
among those readers who have come to associate the use of
the expression ‘related rights’ as a term of art, exclusively in
connection with copyright such as “neighbouring rights”.
The first (“Introduction to the Israeli Legal System”, ch. 1) and
the final chapters (“Enforcement of IP Rights”, ch. 11) of the
book should be treated, in this reviewer’s opinion, as being of
paramount significance for non-Israeli readers who may not be
familiar with the Israeli legal system, which is a reflection of
“the profusion of legal and business cultures” as aptly
expressed by Jeremy Phillips (see back cover) and upon which
the Israeli intellectual property jurisprudence is built. Therefore,
while an excellent overview of the Israeli judicial system is
provided under section 11.1.1, one wonders whether that
information might have been a welcome addition to the
introductory chapter 1 on the Israeli legal system. For readers
who set out to read the book from cover to cover as in the case
of this reviewer or indeed for those who intend to benefit from
the text as a reference source and consult the desired sections
as and when needed, it might be advisable to read chapter 11
first, or at the very least section 11.1.1, before delving into
other chapters which, as the authors put it “... deal with
substantive issues in IP law” (p. 600, para. 1).
Since a list of abbreviations which would have been a helpful
addition at the beginning of the book, is unfortunately missing,
it is suggested that either chapter 1 or 11 might have been an
appropriate place where some explanation about the case

6. ~ 6 ~
citation style adopted in the text by the authors could have
been given (see further below under ‘Case law and legal
citations’).
Liss and Adin provide readers, in each chapter, with a brief
historical account of the IP legislation introduced in Israel when
the latter was subject to the British Mandate between 1922 and
1947. Notwithstanding that “[m]any of the intellectual property
statutes in Israel find their roots in British Mandatory law”, as
noted in WIPO’s Document by the Advisory Committee on
Enforcement, the Israeli IP legislation forms part of a complex
legal system inherited from the past (“The Protection of
Intellectual Property Rights in Israel: A Survey of Legislation,
the Court System, Enforcement and Public Awareness
Programs”, Second Session, Annex, p.4, WIPO/ACE/2/12,
June 25, 2004). The abridged legal history of Israel as
presented in chapter 1, therefore, may be excessively terse for
non-Israeli readers to appreciate the country’s immensely rich
legal heritage and culture. In fact, as Dr. Michal Tamir
(Associate Professor at Shaárei Mishpat College of Law, Hod
Hasharon, Israel) remarks, “[a]lthough influenced by both
common law and civil law, the Israeli legal system has its own
special characteristics” (“A Guide to Legal Research in Israel”,
GlobaLex, August 2006,
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/israel.htm; the guide as updated
by Ms. Esther Mann Snyder is available at
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/israel1.htm).
Tamir goes on to explain the eclectic nature of the Israeli legal
system as follows:
Three layers of law, reflecting the historical
background of Israel, can be identified in various

7. ~ 7 ~
degrees in contemporary law: Ottoman, British
Mandatory and Israeli.
Between the years 1517–1917 Palestine was ruled by
the Turks as part of the Ottoman Empire. The local law
was dominated by codes. The Mejelle, an Ottoman
codification of civil law, held a major role. Drafted by
Moslem scholars, it was influenced by Napoleon’s
Code Civil and published in1867-1877 by the Ottoman
Sultan. It consisted of legal provisions for obligations,
torts, property, commerce, corporation and procedure,
and was liberally illustrated by examples. The Mejelle
was rescinded in 1984 by a special Israeli law. The
Mandate and the subsequent Israeli legislature
rescinded most of the Ottoman laws, leaving only a
few remainders that still exist today. For example,
articles 80-82 of the Ottoman Civil Procedure Law
(1879) are a part of Israel’s evidence law. The
contemporary significance of the Ottoman legal system
arises from the basic legal rule by which a legal system
does not deny rights previously given by a former legal
system. Thus, although the Israeli Real Estate Law
rescinded the Ottoman Real Estate Law, it protected
rights that had been gained according to it.
Ruth Levush (Senior Legal Specialist at the Eastern Law
Division, Directorate of Legal Research, Law Library of
Congress, Washington DC, USA) provides an equally colourful
and comprehensive account of Israel’s rich legal history. (see
Levush, “A Guide to the Israeli Legal System”, LLRX.com,
http://www.llrx.com/features/israel.htm; see also Legal Research
Guide: Israel, Library of Congress,
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/israel.php, which is by and large an
abbreviated version of the text at LLRX.com.

8. ~ 8 ~
Despite the detailed scope of the information provided, the
authors manage to preserve a practical slant which is
conveyed in a vivacious tone that is reinforced by terse
affirmative phrases in the form of single sentence paragraphs,
e.g. “We shall discuss both aspects” (p. 301, above section
4.11.3.2), “We shall discuss each of these remedies” (p. 310,
just above section 4.12.2) or brief rhetorical questions which
read like FAQs that are interspersed throughout the text, e.g.
“What happens if an applicant seeks to amend the
specification in the course of opposition proceedings?” (p. 62,
para. 2), “What must the license include?” (p. 244, section
4.8.5.4). These short phrases and questions help maintain the
reader focused and ensure the book’s standing as a handy
reference work for consultation. Perhaps, therefore, for
purposes of providing citations from the work, a preference for
numbered paragraphs over cumbersome subsection numbers
(such as “4.9.3.4.2.6” at p.263) might have been more
appropriate, in view of the fact that the book is likely to be a
contender for being considered as an indispensable source of
reference for practitioners and legal advisors on intellectual
property law in Israel.
Typography:
Without going as far as Michael Factor according to whom
“[u]nfortunately, the readability of the book suffers from the lack
of professional editing” (http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/book-reviews/) it is
impossible not to notice the presence of typographic errors and
inconsistencies that appear to have made their way through to
the published text.
Notwithstanding a predilection for American English spelling
throughout the book, readers are occasionally likely to stumble
upon a word that is spelt variably in British English (e.g.
‘defence’, p. 258, fn. 265 as opposed to ‘defense’, p. 284,

9. ~ 9 ~
section 4.9.5). A selection of other inconsistencies and typos
which seem to have slipped the editors’ attention is listed
below:
 “L’oreal” spelt with lowercase ‘O’ at p. 557, as opposed
to the correct form in capital ‘O’ as provided in the
corresponding footnote 92. With respect to this case, it
has also to be noted that (i) the order of the
claimant/defendant has been reversed in the main text;
and (ii) the case has been omitted in the Table of
Cases.
 Inconsistent spacing between hyphens, e.g.
“Abstraction- Filtration-Comparison” at p. 373, last line;
 Inconsistent use of certain legal phrases, e.g.
“conditioned imprisonment” at p. 629, fn. 26, as
opposed, perhaps, to “conditional (?) imprisonment”;
“an acknowledge country” at p. 587, fn. 21, as
opposed to “an acknowledged (?) country” as referred
to in the main text at subsection (2);
 Inconsistent use of capitals/lowercase letters for
‘trademark owner’, e.g. “Trademark Owner”, at p. 233,
para. 2, where both initials are in capitals; “Trademark
owner” at p. 237, section 4.8.1.1, para. 2, where the ‘T’
is in capital and ‘o’ lowercase letters; “trademark
owner” at p. 239, penultimate paragraph, where both
initials are in lowercase letters;
 Inconsistent use of capitals/lowercase letters for
‘registered user’, e.g. “registered user” at p. 233,
para.2; where both initials are in lowercase letters;

10. ~ 10 ~
“Registered User” at p. 245, first paragraph, third line,
where both initials are capitalised;
 Inconsistency in the use of bold fonts: It’s not clear as
to why registration numbers cited at fn. 170 on p. 226
are in bold unlike others, e.g. at fn. 171.
 Misspelling of the eponymous Anton Piller case: This
would have been less conspicuous had it not been in a
legal work, e.g. spelt as “Pillar” in the Index at p. 663
and in the introductory chapter 1 at p. 3, para. 2.
Case law and legal citations
An excellent feature of the book is the abundance of
references to the Israeli case law together with relevant quotes
from judgments as well as accompanying comments by the
authors. Several rulings that date from 2011 provide the reader
with the reassurance that access to the current legal dynamics
and trends in Israeli IP law is available at hand. Considering
the paucity of reported Israeli decisions in English, the effort by
the authors to compile, summarise, and quote judiciously from
these cases is a commendable service to English-speaking
readers.
As practising lawyers who have acted on behalf of their clients
in a number of the cases cited, the authors provide readers
with access to several unreported and unpublished cases (e.g.
Pharma Israel v. The Ministry of Health, p. 589, fn. 24), which
serve as a gateway to a legal treasure grove for scholars and
practitioners in other jurisdictions. That said, the use of
acronyms, in the absence of a table of abbreviations at the
beginning of the book containing information about the citation
method adopted, might lead the reader to despair unless as
fortunate as this reviewer to be able to resort to the counsel of

11. ~ 11 ~
Israeli legal experts. While it may not have been particularly
necessary to indicate in brackets that “R&D” would stand for
“Research and Development”, e.g. p. 9, para. 3 and p. 577,
para. 2 or “POA” for “Power of Attorney” at p. 240, where in the
latter case it may have been more appropriate to introduce the
abbreviation at p. 200, para. 3 when first mentioned, the same
can hardly be said of cryptic acronyms, highlighted in bold by
the reviewer, that precede case names such as in those listed
below, as quoted in the book:
C.A. 8802/06 Unipharm Ltd. v. SmithKline Beecham PLC et al
(p.26, fn. 57):
 C.A.: Civil Appeal
 Above at p. 26, fn. 57, “Smith Kilne” stands as a
typographic error which is replicated at p. 27, fn.
61.
 At p. 590, fn. 32, the company name has been
spelt as “Smith Kline” in the form of two distinct
words. In the same footnote, the company is
identified as a “PLC” whereas in the corresponding
Table of Cases (p. 660) the company is spelt
correctly in one word, it is this time indicated as
“Co.”
 While the year of the case is included at fn. 32, p.
590 and in the Table of Cases (p. 660), neither at
fn. 57 (p. 26) or fn. 61 (p. 27) is there any such
mention.
C.C. 115/98 Microsoft Corp. V. Data Pool Ltd. et al. (p. 630, fn.
28):
 C.C.: Criminal Case

12. ~ 12 ~
C.F. (Haifa) 12313/04 Tzur Aviram et al. v. Komda Ltd. et al
(p.368, fn. 165):
 C.F.: Civil File (i.e. Civil Case)
M.A. (Tel Aviv) 1281/06 Amgen Fremount Inc. v. The Patent
Registrar (p. 50, fn. 115)
 M.A.: Miscellaneous Appeals -- an optimistic
guesswork by the reviewer based on the reference
to “Miscellaneous Appeals” at p. 520, fn. 1, where
the case is referred to as “Miscellaneous Appeals
(Tel Aviv) 501/80 Rozenthal Shunia v. The Patent
Registrar”, while the same case is cited in full at p.
14, fn. 18 as “Miscellaneaous Appeals (Tel Aviv)
501/80 Rozenthal Shunia v. The Patent Registrar
(p.m 1984 (3) 441)”. It should be noted that “p.m”,
usually abbreviated as “P.M.” in capital letters, is
the acronym for the case reporter i.e. Psakim
Mehoziim in which the case was published.
MLA 1091/05 Issawi Achmad v. The State of Israel (p. 630, fn.
27):
 MLA: Proving a particularly tough one to crack –
stands for “Motion for Leave to Appeal” (see p.
222, section 4.6.5.5, para. 3)
SC 13729-11-09 Alon Koren Meidan v. Global Networks ICI
Ltd. (p. 569, fn. 125):
 SC: Small Claims (see also SC 15988-02-10 Boris
Gale v. Cellcom Ltd., p. 569, fn. 126; SC 36975-

13. ~ 13 ~
03-10 Guy Mayor v. Tel Aviv University, p. 570, fn.
127
 As in the above example of “MLA”, the reader is
left to his own means if he truly wishes to discover
the type of procedure by going back and forth
between the index, the Table of Cases as well as
trying to spot a clue either in the text or most likely
in the footnotes
O.M. 506/06 Matim Li Fashion Chain for Large Sizes Ltd. et al.
v. Crazy Line Ltd. et al. -- as spelt in the Table of Cases at p.
644, which, probably is better than the citation at p. 546, fn. 69
where inconsistency in the use of capital letters prevails:
 O.M.: Opening Motion: Not listed in the index but
conversely mentioned in the Table of Contents and
constituting the title of section 11.1.2.1 at p. 603.
Though this reviewer was able to decipher some of the
acronyms thanks to the generous help and expertise of his
friends and colleagues, Ms. Li Maor, Legal Consultant, Head of
Israel Desk, Division for Certain Countries in Europe and Asia
(DCEA) at WIPO in Geneva and Dr. Assaf Jacob, Lecturer in
Law at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, who could
deduce the meaning of the acronyms that precede the cases
cited, from the facts and procedural history of the dispute, it
has to be admitted that some, such as “MLA”, seemed
equally mystifying to them. It is, therefore, highly questionable
whether the majority of readers will ever make any sense of
them. These initials are all the more inaccessible when one
considers that they neither follow the leading US nor UK
standard citation guidelines for Israeli case law.

14. ~ 14 ~
By way of illustration, in “C.C. 115/98 Microsoft Corp. V. Data
Pool Ltd. et al.” (p. 630, fn. 28)”, C.C. could be taken to stand
for either a ‘Civil Case’ or a ‘Criminal Case’. To make the
distinction, in the Guide to Foreign and International Legal
Citations of the Journal of International Law and Politics by
New York University School of Law, authors are instructed to
adopt “C.C.” for civil cases and “Cr.C.” in respect of criminal
cases (section 3.1, p. 94,
(http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv1/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__library/
documents/documents/ecm_dlv_006388.pdf). On the other hand, in its
“Instructions for Contributors” for publications in the Israel Law
Review by Cambridge Journals, civil cases are required to be
abbreviated as “CC” and criminal cases to be cited as “CrimC”
(p. 11, http://assets.cambridge.org/ISR/ISR_ifc.pdf). This particular style
might have been a more befitting choice for the publishers of
this book in view of the fact that the “Israel Law Review – albeit
published by Cambridge University Press -- uses the style of
citation formulated by the Oxford University Standard for
Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA)” (p. 3, B. 2. (a), ibid).
In view of the fact that the book is likely to attract the attention
and interest of an international audience, it is, therefore,
disappointing, that the publishers have not deemed it
necessary to provide a comprehensive list of abbreviations at
the beginning of the book.
Nevo, the legal publishers:
It may, perhaps, have been helpful had some information been
provided, at some point, on the local legal publishers for the
benefit of readers who may not be familiar with Israeli legal
resources, as Ruth Levush, or Dr. Michal Tamir, have done in
their guides to the Israeli legal system (see above).
The date as of which Nevo -- an Israeli legal publishing house
to which laconic references are made in brackets following a

15. ~ 15 ~
number of cases cited in the text (see e.g. C.F. 827/07 Erez
Ben Simon v. Monitz Iro et al. (published in Nevo))” -- assumed
the publication of the judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court,
which were previously published by the Israeli Bar, however,
differs by a year in Levush and Tamir’s respective guides.
Tamir maintains that Nevo began to report cases since 1997
(see section 8.8, ibid) whereas Levush pins the date at 1999
(see LLRX.com, ibid and Library of Congress, ibid, under
“Official Case Reports (in Hebrew)”).
This reviewer is inclined to place his bet on the advice kindly
offered by his friend Li Maor, according to whom, it was,
actually, in the mid 1998 that Nevo Press began to report
cases following a successful bid for tender and was duly
licensed as the official publishers of the judgments of the
Supreme Court.
Case/judgment dates:
Readers may find it disconcerting that dates relating to cases
frequently appear to be missing. Unfortunately, phrases such
as “As recently held by the Patent Registrar ...” (see p. 147,
section 3.3, para. 3 and corresponding footnote 23) or “In the
recently published guidelines for examination ...” (see p. 67,
last para, and the corresponding footnote 152) without further
precision as to the exact dates either in the text or in the
corresponding footnotes, are not particularly helpful. For
instance, in connection with the landmark JAFFA case which is
covered under chapter 8 at p. 505, no dates are to be found
either in the text or at footnote 4 where the case is cited in full
or, for that matter, in the Table of Cases at p. 638. In a lucid
and detailed article on the same decision by Neil Wilkof and
Shir Uzrad in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law &
Practice (“In the matter of the appellation of origin for ‘JAFFA’”,
2008, Vol.3, No. 1, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpm222), the authors, by

16. ~ 16 ~
contrast, introduce their article with a citation that leaves not a
shred of doubt as to the full particulars of the case not least the
date: “The Citrus Division of the Plant Production and
Marketing Board v Israel Commissioner of Patents and Trade
Marks [2007] 1011/05, Appeal Board (Jerusalem), 12 July
2007” (at p.17).
Practical focus:
As might be expected from a text that is written by two litigation
lawyers, the practical slant of the content is a pervasive feature
of this book. Liss and Adin would, therefore, appear to have
achieved what they set out to accomplish as stated in the
Preface at pp. xxiii-xxiv:
Our aim is to provide the readers with a very practical
overview, which includes all the relevant information:
from instructions of how to register IP rights in Israel, to
numerous illustrations of how Israeli Courts have ruled
on pertinent issues, and a very extensive analysis of
important case law.
The use of flow charts as in the case of the “standard” or “fast
procedure” on pp. 617-18 and p. 620, respectively, within the
context of procedural steps as prescribed by the Customs
Guidelines, as well as illustrated comparisons of trade marks
on pp. 177-79, 251-56, 264, and 267-68 are particularly
helpful and informative.
Frequent commentaries and suggestions throughout the text,
such as to the manner in which damages are assessed (at p.
311) may be welcome as useful complimentary legal advice to
the foreign businessperson or legal advisor, as well as
providing the non-practitioner with a deeper understanding of
the underlying issues and the local jurisdiction. The authors do

17. ~ 17 ~
not hesitate to express their forthright criticisms of decisions
with which they disagree (see e.g. p. 258, second paragraph or
at p. 304, first line). In this respect, albeit written in English,
one may surmise that the authors intend that the Israeli
legislature (e.g. at p. 243, section 4.8.5.3, para. 3), the judiciary
and the Israeli Patent Office be among the target audience for
the book.
Sections of various IP legislation and passages from
judgments, as quoted by the authors in English, in parts of the
text appear to have been selected judiciously and in good
measure. Though, unfortunately not made clear as to whether
the English translations are those of the authors or the officially
authorised version, they do help the reader to form an opinion
which is not strictly influenced by the observations and
objections that reflect the authors’ own views and deductions.
Comparative perspective:
In support of the virtues of comparative studies, this reviewer
should like to quote from Henry H. Ehrmann:
Although the careful study of a single legal culture can
yield valuable insights, only the analysis of a variety of
legal cultures will recognize what is accidental rather
than necessary, what is permanent rather than
changeable in legal norms and legal agencies, and
what characterizes the beliefs underlying both.
(Comparative Legal Cultures, Prentice Hall Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976, p. 11)
The authors’ deliberate choice to adopt a comparative
approach with references to the US, UK and the EU appears
sagacious, as it thus has not only the potential to appeal to a
wider audience but also to render Israeli IP jurisprudence more

18. ~ 18 ~
accessible to the foreign reader who may, by drawing
comparisons, have a yardstick against which to judge and
appreciate the nuances of another legal system.
At times, Liss and Adin simply consider the differences
between two of the jurisdictions mentioned above such as the
EU and Israel (e.g. at p. 169, final para. concerning the
registration of single letter marks) or the UK and Israel (at p.
230, comparison between the position in the UK and Israel in
the context of the use of a trade mark) and in other instances
between all three, e.g. at chapter 9, on the subject of “software,
e-commerce and business patents”, where the authors
successively trace the developments in the US (at pp. 522-24,
para. 9.1.1.2.1), the EU (at pp. 524-27, para. 9.1.1.2.2) and
Israel (at pp. 527-31, 9.1.1.2.3).
Currency and reliability
Another of the book’s forte is the abundance of case law that
helps put the law into context and observe how it is applied by
the Israeli judiciary. Several cases that are cited are as recent
as 2011, such as the decision by the Israeli Supreme Court
sitting as the Court of Appeal in the case of C.A. 3960/106 The
Customs Authorities v. Christian Dior Couture (2011) (see p.
618).
The information is current and up-to-date. Petach Tikva, which
became the sixth District Court of Israel in 2007 (see
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123435 as cited on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_judicial_system) on top of the existing
five, comprising Be’er Sheva, Haifa, Nazareth, Tel Aviv, and
Jerusalem, is mentioned in chapter 9 at p. 602. It has to be
noted that in this instance, Liss and Adin are one step ahead of
the official website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry where the
number of district courts still stands at five (see “Judiciary: The

19. ~ 19 ~
Court System”, under “District Courts” at
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Branches%20of%20Government/Judic
ial/The%20Judiciary-%20The%20Court%20System, as at 30 September
2012).
Concluding remark:
Despite some minor typographic and editorial lapses, the
reviewer is assured that the book is an extremely valuable
guide to Israeli intellectual property law and practice and, as a
comprehensive textbook, is likely to appeal to the international
academia, while at the same time serving as an authoritative
reference source for the business world and the legal
profession.