Beijing IP Court releases 10 typical cases of infringement of trade secrets #10
- CN-KnowHow IP Group
- Jul 12, 2024
- 3 min read
On November 30th, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a press conference to release the ten typical cases of infringement of trade secrets. These cases are significant in clarifying the judicial thinking and rules for handling trade secret infringement cases, enhancing awareness of self-protection and compliance for businesses, and fostering a favorable atmosphere in society that respects and protects trade secrets. We will provide a complete translation of the case details and analysis text released by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court as follows:
Case 10
Infringement of Customer List Trade Secret Case
The plaintiff in the first instance ,a Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. (referred to as Sports Company A), a Cultural Development (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (referred to as Cultural Company B), and a Tourism Co., Ltd. (referred to as Tourism Company C), are domestic golf service operators that provide value-added golf services to VIP customers of domestic financial institutions. The defendants in the first instance, including Jin and five others, were former employees of the plaintiff and held positions such as golf course manager and major customer department manager. They resigned from their positions at different years in 2012 and 2013 and joined the defendant, a Sports Investment Co., Ltd. (referred to as Investment Company D). Sports Company A and the other two companies believed that their operational information, including cooperation details with relevant golf courses, golf course management system data, and cooperation information with related banks, constituted trade secrets. Jin and the other five defendants disclosed this information to Investment Company D without permission. Investment Company D was aware that Jin and the others had illegally disclosed the aforementioned information but still actively used it for their business to gain benefits, thereby infringing on the trade secrets of Sports Company A and the other three companies. Therefore, they filed a lawsuit in the first-instance court, requesting that Investment Company D and Jin and the other five defendants cease their infringement of trade secrets and compensate for economic losses amounting to CNY 15 million.
The first-instance court, after trial, determined that Jin, Xu, Yao, and the other three defendants had illegally disclosed the trade secrets of Sports Company A and the other three companies to Investment Company D. Despite being aware that the information in question was the trade secrets of Sports Company A and the other three companies, Investment Company D continued to use it actively for their business. These actions violated the provisions of Article 10, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the 1993 Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and thus, the first-instance court ruled that Investment Company D, Jin, and the three other defendants should cease their infringement of the trade secrets in question and compensate Sports Company A and the other three companies for their economic losses and reasonable expenses, totaling CNY 7.99 million.
Investment Company D, Jin, and the three other defendants disagreed with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The second-instance court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Key Points of the Judgment
Sports Company A and the other three companies had accumulated operational information over several years in the field of golf services, including details of cooperation with numerous golf courses and cooperation with several banks. This information was not generally known to professionals in the same field, had commercial value, and had been subject to confidentiality measures. Therefore, it constituted trade secrets.
During their employment, Jin, Yao, Xu, and the other three defendants had the opportunity to access these trade secrets. After joining Investment Company D, they violated the terms of their confidentiality agreements and disclosed the trade secrets to Investment Company D. Despite being aware that the information they used was the trade secrets of Sports Company A and the other three companies, Investment Company D continued to actively utilize this information for their business. These actions constituted unfair competition and infringed upon the trade secrets of Sports Company A and the other three companies.