Skip to main content
· 1/6/1913

Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. v. Schnelbach

Citations

  • 239 Pa. 76
  • 86 A. 688
  • 1913 Pa. LEXIS 524

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Injunction—Trade secrets — Master and servant — Confidential relation.</p> <p>1. A court of equity, if the facts warrant, will restrain an employee from making disclosures or use of trade secrets communicated to him in course of a confidential employment. The character of the secrets, if they be peculiar and important to the business, is not material. They may be secrets of trade, or secrets of title, or secret processes of manufacture, or any other secrets important to the business of the employer. They, however, must be the particular secrets of the complaining employer, not general secrets of the trade in which he is engaged, nor even the same secrets as those sought to be' protected, if they be discovered by the independent investigation of outside parties.</p> <p>2. The duty of the servant not to disclose the seerets of the master may arise from an express contract, or it may be implied from their confidential relations. It is likewise true that other persons who induce such disclosures by an employee, knowing of his contract not to disclose, or knowing that the disclosure is in violation of the confidence reposed in him by his employer, will be enjoined from making use of the information so obtained. Where confidence is reposed, and the employee by reason of the confidential relation has acquired knowledge of trade secrets, he will not be permitted to make disclosure of those secrets to others to the prejudice of his employer.</p> <p>3. An injunction may be granted to enjoin the use of a trade secret, or to restrain the manufacture and sale of an article so made against a defendant, who acquired his knowledge in violation of an express contract not to divulge, or in breach of confidence between employee and employer.</p> <p>4. On a bill in equity for an injunction to restrain the use of a trade secret, the burden is on the complainant to show: (1) that there was a trade secret, or a secret process of manufacture; (2) that it was of value to the emp

Judges: Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.