Protection of Trade Secrets

1805 Words4 Pages

LIST OF CASES
John Richard Brady Vs. Chemical Process Equipments AIR 1987 Delhi 372
Diljeet Titus Advocates Vs. Alfred A. Adebare 1968 3 AUER 732
Market Investigation Vs. Ministry of Social Security1968 3 AUER 732
Cattle Remedies Vs. Licensing Authority 2007(2)AWC 1093
Escorts Construction Vs. Action Construction1999 PTC 36 (Del)
Michael Heath Vs. Subhash Chandra 1995 PTC 300
Puneet Industrial Control Vs. Classic Electronic (1997) Supp Arb.LR 195 Del 9
Burlington Home Vs. Rajneesh Chhibber 1995 PTC (15) 278
Farm Equipments Vs. Greenfield, Madras High Court 2006 (32) PTC 343 (Mad)
PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1995).
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 (Ct. App. 2002).
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 299, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
Hubbord v Vosper[1972]2 QB84
Seager vCopydex [1969]2 ALL ER 718
Hariprasad VBenibai 1970JLJ091
Faccnenda Chicken v Fowler [1986]1 ALL ER 617
Gujrat BottlingCo ltd v Coca Cola L(1995)5SCC 545
Zee telefilmsLtd and films and shot and Anr V Sundial Communications Pvt Ltd and Ors 2003[5]BomCR404
Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham 747 N.E.2d 768 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Bharat Coca-cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd MANU/DE/0740/1999: 81(1999)DLT122

INTRODUCTION:
In the present scenario, in the age of globalization and technological boom where the economy is getting high tech and day by day more competitive, knowledgeable and savvy employees are inevitable. Looking at the present market situation, employees are becoming less loyal towards their company in comparison with the past few decades. Frequency of employees changing companies have , sometimes they leave their jobs and work for competitors or for themselves. Hence in this changing climate, it has beco...

... middle of paper ...

...etriment to the employer, to which the employee had access in the course of service. The court referred to the judgment of Market Investigation Vs. Ministry of Social Security and held that four fold test of control, ownership of two, chance of profit and risk of loss determine whether the relationship was contract of services or contract for services. In the said judgment an associate attorney of a law firm walked away with data pertaining to the clients’ list and their address details. While issuing an interlocutory injunction, the court held that there was a case of breach of trust or confidence made out. The court further held that a court must step in to restrain a breach of confidence independent of any right under law. Such an intention need not be expressed but be implied as breach of such confidence is independent of any other right as stated above.

Open Document