12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- The defendant further claims that the initial negotiations were conducted between a number of parties that the plaintiff refrained from joining the proceeding, including: Mr. Dennis Polanski (hereinafter: Polanski), the defendant's partner in the establishment of the site and the person who was in charge of locating suppliers and interested parties, Mrs. Gali Wheeler (hereinafter: Wheeler), the defendant's wife, who financed the establishment of the site, and Mr. Robert Grossman (hereinafter: Grossman), an American seller of the defendant who was in charge of marketing activities in connection with the website and the owner of the foreign corporation - Top Tier Merchant, through which the project's activities were concentrated. In this context, the defendant further argues that around September 2020, the business activity was transferred to the foreign corporation DB Protective LLC (Hereinafter: The Corporation DB), which was established by the defendant, Wheeler and Polanski. Against the background of these claims, the defendant argues in the statement of defense that the lawsuit should be dismissed out of hand due to lack of cause, lack of rivalry, and improper forum. This, while according to him, the proper forum for discussion is The Competent Court In the United States. The defendant further argues in this context that the plaintiff's claims to entitlement to the profits of the venture require the incorporation of the foreign corporations through which the business activity was concentrated.
- Further to the aforesaid, the defendant further claims that during the month of May 2020, the defendant acted together with two other parties, who are not a party to the present proceeding, to establish a new and separate project through the establishment of a new website, the DB. According to the defendant, this website was not active until the end of June 2020, and it was registered, according to the claim, only during the month of September 2020. The defendant emphasizes that the activity on this site was extensive and varied and included the marketing of many different products from those sold on the site TTM. In fact, the defendant claims, the activity on the site DB Done in isolation from the activity on the site TTM and the plaintiff had nothing to do with him. Moreover, the defendant claims that the plaintiff caused damage to the site's activity DB, by virtue of which he has a right to offset in the sum of approximately ILS 100, 000.
- In order to complete the factual picture, it should be noted, and there is no dispute about this, that In February 2021, the connection between the The Parties. There is no dispute that As of that date, the plaintiff ceased to perform Activity on or in connection with the Sites and access to them has been blocked.
The Evidence in the Proceeding