Leo Silfen, Inc. v. Cream

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, for example, a physical taking of customer lists might give rise to a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
• stating courts have not hesitated to protect files as trade secrets where they are secured by years of effort and advertising effected by the expenditure of substantial time and money
• in light of ease of plaintiff’s development of its trade secret customer list, a permanent injunction of three months was found sufficient
• Wrongful or fraudulent tactics employed by defendant in soliciting plaintiffs customers may be enjoined as unfair competition and a court may award damages
• “[W]here the customers are not known in the trade or are discoverable only by extraordinary efforts courts have not hesitated to protect customer lists and files as trade secrets.”
• “A trade secret, like any other secret, is nothing more than private matter; something known to only one or a few and kept from the general public; and not susceptible to general knowledge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Leo Silfen, Inc. v. Cream

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Leo Silfen, Inc. v. Cream
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1971-07-06· cited 1×