Chapter 40 Case Outlines

Ed Nowogroski Insurance, Inc v. Rucker
971 P.2d 936

ISSUE: Whether the fact that the customer information was in an employee’s memory allows him to use with impunity the information that was otherwise a trade secret under the statute.

RULE: As a general rule, an employee who has not signed an agreement not to compete is free, upon leaving employment, to engage in competitive employment. However, the former employee, even in the absence of an enforceable covenant not to compete, remains under a duty not to use or disclose, to the detriment of the former employer, trade secrets acquired in the course of their employment.

ANALYSIS: It is evident that the employees obtained confidential information while working for Nowogroski. It is also evident that these employees used client lists and other information that was obtained at Nowogroski to get business for another agency. Three rules can be looked at to decide whether a customer list is protected as a trade secret: ( 1) whether the list is a compilation of information; ( 2) whether it is valuable because it is unknown to others; and ( 3) whether the owner has made reasonable attempts to keep the information secret.

CONCLUSION: Yes, although a former employee may use general knowledge, skills, and experience acquired during the prior employment in competing with a former employer, the employee may not use or disclose trade secrets belonging to the former employer to actively solicit customers from a confidential customer list, whether written or memorized.

Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc.
146 L.Ed.2d 182

ISSUE: Whether Wal- Mart, Judy- Philippine, Kmart, Caldor, Hills, and Goody’s were liable for copyright infringement under federal law and infringement of unregistered trade dress under Section 43( a) of the Lanham Act.

RULE: The Lanham Act provides