Tag: Trade

Keeping your Trade Secrets Safe: The Runaway Employee

How can a business protect its critical information when an employee goes to work for a competitor? Many employers simply assume that if it deems information “confidential,” the law automatically protects it when an employee leaves and goes to work for a competitor.  That’s not necessarily the case.  In order to protect its confidential information, such as intellectual property, information, systems, customer lists, pricing information and the like, an employer must take affirmative steps long before the rogue employee leaves to ensure that its information is protected.  Such information can be protected from disclosure both under Illinois common law and pursuant to the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”).

An employer’s trade secrets, such as its customer lists, are a protectable interest. An employer has a clear and ascertainable right in protecting its trade secrets. To show information is a trade secret under ITSA, an employer must meet two threshold requirements. First, it must show the information was sufficiently secret to provide the employer with a competitive advantage. Second, the employer must show that it took affirmative measures to stop others from acquiring or using the information. Examples of steps employers typically take to keep information confidential include keeping the information under lock and key, limiting computer access, requiring confidentiality agreements, and other employer efforts to advise employees that the information imparted to them must be kept secret. Establishing this second prong is where employers typically fall short.

Where employers have invested substantial time, money, and effort to obtain a secret advantage, the secret should be protected from an employee who obtains it through improper means. Although employees may take general knowledge or information with them that they developed during their employment, they may not take confidential information, including trade secrets. The taking does not have to be a physical taking by actually copying the names. A trade secret can be misappropriated by physical copying or by memorization. Using memorization to rebuild a trade secret does not transform the trade secret from confidential information into non-confidential information. A trade secret can also be obtained through reverse engineering

Whether and how an employer keeps information secret is one of the most important factors when determining whether information is a trade secret. When information is generally known or understood in an industry, even if it is unknown to the public at large, it does not constitute a trade secret. If a business fully discloses information throughout an industry through a catalog or other literature, it is not considered a trade secret. If the information can be readily duplicated without considerable time, effort, or expense, it is not considered a trade secret. If a customer list, for example, is generally available to all employees and the employees are not required to sign confidentiality agreements, the list is likely not considered a trade secret.

By far the most litigation in this area is over whether an employer’s customer list is a confidential trade secret.  Whether customer lists constitute trade secrets largely depends on the facts of each case.  Customer lists and other customer information can be considered a protectable trade secret if the information has been developed by the employer over a number of years at great expense and kept under tight security. However, the same type of information is not protectable where it has not been treated as confidential and secret by the employer, was generally available to other employees and known by persons in the trade, could be easily duplicated by reference to telephone directories or industry publications, and where the customers on such lists did business with more than one company or otherwise changed businesses frequently so that their identities were known to the employer’s competitors.

Illinois courts have found that customer lists do not constitute protectable trade secrets where, for example: a) the particular industry was competitive and customers often dealt with multiple companies; b) the employer had failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the customer list was subject to reasonable efforts to protect its secrecy; and c) sufficient efforts had not been taken to maintain the list’s secrecy. To be a protectable trade secret, the employer must demonstrate the information it seeks to protect was sufficiently secret to provide it with a competitive advantage. However, for steps to be deemed sufficient to protect a trade secret, extensive steps must be taken to protect both the electronic and hard copies of the purported trade secret.

For more information regarding the protection of a company’s confidential information, please contact:

Howard L. Teplinsky at:

(312) 368-0100 or hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com

Do Trademarks Create a Brand Monopoly?

We are all familiar with certain brands: Huggies, Apple, M&Ms, Sony, Gucci, Exxon, and more.  We are bombarded with advertisements daily through our mobile devices and televisions that solidify this fame by drawing a strong connection in the minds of the consumers between the products and the companies who produce them.  The law gives heightened protection to the owners of famous trademarks, meaning that these companies may be able to prevent others from using similar marks for a wider scope of products or services than the scope of the goods and services contained within the trademark registrations they own.

But, what is the scope of protection for a famous mark, and where does it end?  Do the owners of famous brands have such broad brand extension so as to create a monopoly on these brands across all categories of products and services?  This article examines the requirements to establish a mark as “famous”, the contexts in which fame comes into play, and the extent to which the owners of famous marks enjoy broadened protection.

According to the Lanham Act, in order for a mark to be considered famous, it must be “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States.”  15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(A).  The degree of fame must exist in the general marketplace, not in a niche market.   Fame that is limited to a particular channel of trade, segment of industry or service, or geographic region is not sufficient to meet that standard.

The breadth of protection and scope of famous trademarks are evaluated differently depending upon the context of the proceeding.  For example, in a trademark infringement case in court, fame is a significant factor in determining the strength of a mark. However, the strength of the mark is only one factor among many.  The likelihood of confusion test is an equitable balancing test and no single factor is dispositive.  The role of fame in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings is even more significant, where fame is a dominant factor, and the fame of an opposer’s mark must be “accorded full weight” in Trademark Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings.  Stronger yet, is the role of fame in a Trademark Dilution litigation context, where fame of the trademark at issue is a threshold matter.  Additionally, pursuant to the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, fame is a significant factor in determining whether there is a likelihood of dilution by blurring.

The following factors, if present, tend to suggest that a mark may not qualify as “famous” under the Lanham Act:  (1) extensive third party use, and (2)  whether the terms are in common use as marks, or whether a “distinct brand name” appears alongside the mark.

As more and more brands become “household names”, trademark owners should be aware that choosing a brand that has any connotation or sounds remotely like a famous brand, even if it is not in the relevant industry, may be problematic.

To discuss trademarks and branding generally, please contact:

Natalie A. Remien at:

nremien@lgattorneys.com or 312-368-0100


"We've worked with Levin Ginsburg since the 1980s...we have grown with them and have a very high level of comfort and confidence with this firm." Jay Nichols, President,
Badger Murphy
"Astute, responsive and practical. Those are three reasons why we work with Levin Ginsburg." Bryan L. Oyster, V.P. and General Manager,
Bentley Forbes