I often litigate unfair business competition cases.  These cases can arise in a variety of settings including actions for trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, or business torts including interference with contractual relations.  In Federal Court the Lanham Act is the federal unfair competition statute that protects consumers from trademark infringement or false advertising.

In California there is also an unfair competition law.  California’s unfair competition law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., UCL) “is a notoriously broad statute.”  This law defines the breath of the statute by stating: “… unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising…”

Virtually any law or regulation including federal or state, statutory or common law, can serve as predicate for a § 17200 “unlawful” violation.  If a “business practice” violates any law literally it also violates § 17200 and may be redressed under that section. [People v. E.W.A.P., Inc. (1980) 106 CA3d 315, 319, 165 CR 73, 75] .  As the California Supreme Court has said, § 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices independently actionable under § 17200. [Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 2 C4th 377, 383]

In 2004 the California voters passed Proposition 64 which limited lawsuits brought under this law.  The limitation required the person bringing the lawsuit to have suffered an actual injury and instead of allowing what was referred to as representative actions, they are now required to be class action lawsuits and follow the strict requirements of such lawsuits.

_________________________

Robert G. Klein, Esq. is a Los Angeles trademark attorney, business litigation attorney lawyer and a Los Angeles business lawyer who specializes in trademark infringement, copyright infringement, business torts, breach of contract actions and unfair competition.  He feels it is important to hire a Los Angeles trademark lawyer and a Los Angeles business lawyer if one is involved in litigation in that locale.  Robert G. Klein is a prominent Los Angeles business attorney and is available for consultation on matters involving trademark infringement, copyright infringement, breach of contract cases, business torts, fraud, and business law matters.  He has successfully obtained many multi-million dollar jury verdicts. Many of Mr. Klein’s court decisions have been published as case authority and he has appeared before the United States Supreme Court for oral argument. Mr. Klein has also published “Consumer List: Trade Secret or Fair Game?”, which is an article published in the Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine. Los Angeles trademark infringement attorney Robert G. Klein can be reached at (213) 996-8508 or visit our web site at http://www.kleinlitigation.com

Posted in Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, Trade Secret, Trademark  |   No Comments/Questions

I was recently retained to file a lawsuit against a former employee of my client for taking various confidential information.  We sued for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets.

There is a distinction between confidential information and trade secrets.  Confidential information is a trade secret if it has economic value from not being known generally to others, and has been the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy.

One issue that often arises in these cases is when customer information qualifies as a trade secret.   In a case called Morlife, Inc. v. Perry (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 1514, 1521 a commercial roof repair company brought an action against former employees for misappropriation of confidential customer information in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The plaintiff alleged that, after leaving plaintiff’s employ, defendants actively solicited plaintiff’s customers, whose identity defendants had learned as a result of having worked for plaintiff.

In concluding Morlife’s customer list fell within the definition of a trade secret under the UTSA, the court found that “Morlife provides a relatively unusual roofing service, namely, commercial roof repair and maintenance, as distinguished from replacement roofing.” Its customer list was “a compilation, developed over a period of years, of names, addresses, and contact persons, containing pricing information and knowledge about particular roofs and roofing needs of customers using its services: as such, it has independent economic value. The identity of those particular commercial buildings using such services is not generally known to the roofing industry.”

The court further emphasized “Morlife made reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its customers’ identity by limiting circulation of its customer lists and by advising its employees, including [appellants] Lloyd Perry and Carl Bowersmith, through an employment agreement and an employee handbook, that Morlife considered the information valuable and confidential.”

The amount of effort used to acquire the information is a key factor the courts look at when deciding when a customer list qualifies as a trade secret.

Robert G. Klein, Esq. is a Los Angeles trademark attorney and a Los Angeles business lawyer who specializes in trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.  He feels it is important to hire a Los Angeles trademark lawyer and a Los Angeles business lawyer if one is involved in litigation in that locale.  Robert G. Klein is a prominent Los Angeles business attorney and is available for consultation on matters involving trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and business law matters.  He has successfully obtained many multi-million dollar jury verdicts. Many of Mr. Klein’s court decisions have been published as case authority and he has appeared before the United States Supreme Court for oral argument. Mr. Klein has also published “Consumer List: Trade Secret or Fair Game?”, which is an article published in the Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine. Los Angeles trademark infringement attorney Robert G. Klein can be reached at (213) 996-8508 or visit our web site at http://www.kleinlitigation.com

Posted in Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, Trade Secret  |   No Comments/Questions

I appeared today in the United States Bankruptcy court on a motion I filed to have a lawsuit dismissed against my client.  I represent a man who owned a corporation involved in the manufacturer of Mexican foods that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  The bankruptcy judge ordered a Trustee be appointed and liquidate the company.  Included in the sale were the recipes the Debtor used while operating the business.

The new buyers were disappointed with their sales and sued my client and their chief competitor claiming that my client must have taken these recipes they claimed were trade secrets and conspired with their competitor to unfairly compete in the sale of certain items of Mexican foods.

During that state court action I wrote a letter challenging their allegations and questioning whether they even had clear title to some of these recipes based upon the facts as I knew them.  Based upon this letter, the new buyers filed a new lawsuit against my client in the bankruptcy court seeking an order declaring the parties rights to these recipes and an injunction.

I filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming there was no issue for the court to determine and therefore no controversay.  Without a case or controversay the federal court had no jurisdiction.  I also argued that any letter I wrote arising out of the state court lawsuit was subject to an absolute litigation privilege.

The bankruptcy judge agreed with me and dismissed the lawsuit without leave to amend.

Justice prevailed.

Posted in Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, Trade Secret  |   No Comments/Questions