HT Process Controls Private Limited

- Special-purpose machines for oil and gas.
- Concept notes, technical specification, drawings, designs, bill of materials and manuals.

- The defendant - Former chief manager of automation and robotics' employment contract prohibited him from misuse or disclosure of confidential data obtained during service.
- Misappropriation of confidential information/trade secrets by a former employee who allegedly copied or transferred proprietary information from company systems to personal devices, amounting to unauthorised acquisition.
- Further, used or threatened to use this information after resignation to benefit competitively, possibly with a competitor.
- Violated contractual and equitable duties of confidence

- July 2024 - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from disclosing/misusing trade secrets and appointing a Local Commissioner to secure evidence.
- March 2025 - authorization to inspect third-party premises and preserve evidence

- Ex-parte order of injunction restraining the ex-employee Ankur Gupta & his new employer from utilising and disclosing the plaintiff's confidential and trade secret information.
- Conduct of emailing the plaintiff's proprietary documents to himself, to which he neither had access nor the authority to utilise, was culpable.
-New employer company opposed the plaintiff's patent applications was seen as suspicious.
- Appointed local commissioners to conduct raids and seize devices such as laptops, phones, etc. (both personal and official) from the defendants.

- The trade secrets were alleged to have independent economic value, they were not publicly available, and the company has taken efforts to maintain the secrecy of the same.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47692199/

American Express Bank Ltd.

-Customer financial data and portfolio details compiled internally
- customer lists of Wealth Management and Wealth View operations.
- internal Business and operations information
- confidential operational data and access credentials.

- Priya Puri, the head of wealth management at American Express Bank, resigned and joined a competing firm.
- The bank alleged that she unlawfully accessed and shared confidential customer information, breaching intellectual property rights and data privacy policies.

- March 2001: Defendant’s employment with American Express begins;
- April 2005: Defendant promoted to Head, Wealth Management, Northern Region;
- September 2005: Defendant tenders resignation;
- September 2005: Plaintiff alleges defendant compiled/retained confidential data before leaving;
- October 2005: Defendant’s employment terminated by plaintiff;
- October 2005: Interim order granted: defendant restrained from using confidential information/data

- Vacated the interim injunction against the defendant
- Publicly available customer information, such as contact details, cannot be classified as trade secrets.
- Mere possession or access to customer contacts and information without clear demonstration of misuse of trade secrets does not automatically justify perpetual restraint.
- Confidentiality of the company's operations must be balanced with employees’ career mobility and professional growth.
- Companies must adopt stringent internal measures such as secure data management, employee training, and well-defined contractual clauses to safeguard proprietary information.

- Highlighted the need for clear legal frameworks to distinguish between trade secrets and general industry knowledge.

Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd.

- Detailed technical drawings and specifications of a Fodder Production Unit.
- Technical know-how about the design and construction of the FPU.
- Business information related to the FPU design and its improvements.

- Defendants utilised the confidential knowledge and drawings beyond the limited purpose for which they were shared.
- Resulting in breaching both contractual and equitable duties of confidence.

- 1972-80s: Brady develops and perfects the FPU and associated technical know-how.
- August 1984: Letter under which Brady supplied technical drawings and specifications to defendants with confidentiality undertakings.
- November 1985: Plaintiff serve notice to desist from misuse of confidential information/know-how.
- January 1986: Defendants reply denying plaintiffs’ claims.

- Interim injunction restraining the defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in machines that were substantial imitations or reproductions.
- restraining the use of confidential know-how, specifications, drawings, and technical information.

- Breach of Confidence through the misuse of the supplied technical information and drawings;
- potential infringement of copyright in the drawings used.

Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate

Mr. Alfred A. Adebare and Ors

- Client information: lists of clients and law firms
- Practice-related data: proprietary computerised records and documents generated
- Legal opinion and strategies
- Computer-generated proprietary database containing sensitive firm.

- Breakdown of a professional relationship between a senior advocate (plaintiff) and his associates (defendants), when they left to form their own law firm.
- Alleged that upon leaving they took confidential information and proprietary data.

- before 1997: Plaintiff had been practicing law; later set up Titus & Company and built proprietary systems and databases.
- March 2004: Associates left the plaintiff’s firm.
- September 2004: Police seized computers with data copies allegedly taken from plaintiff’s system.
- 2004–2006: Pleadings and hearings on interim injunction under Order 39, CPC

- Implied duty of confidentiality in professional settings and unauthorised copying of confidential records
- held that the relationship between the parties was that of a contract of service.
- The court restrained the defendants and their representatives from utilising material of the plaintiff and from disseminating or exploiting the same, including the data, for their own benefit.

- The court did not definitively label all the data alleged as proprietary trade secrets in modern commercial law terms.
but focused on whether the defendants had misused confidential data

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1023088/

- Customised real-estate business software from Oracle - a software.
- customer and supplier lists
- information relating to manufacturing processes.

- Defendant a whole time director of Bombay Dyeing was holdng positions with the competitor without approval.
- Alleged that confidential material was shared without authority and despite comprehensive confidentiality clause.

- August 2005: Appointed whole-time Director under an employment agreement with strict confidentiality clauses.
- May 2008: Plaintiff’s Board terminated defendant’s employment after suspicion of misconduct;
- June 2008: defendant’s company laptop and property taken back. Emails with alleged disclosures were retrieved.
- 2008–2010:Plaintiff approached HC seeking injunctions and other reliefs against disclosure/use of confidential information.

- Restrained the defendant from disclosing or using the customized software manual of the plaintiff’s real-estate business.
- Restrained from using MOU related to the Goa property project that were attached to emails sent to a competitor.
- Employment confidentiality clauses are enforceable even beyond employment if clearly drafted.
- Trade secrets/proprietary information must have real confidential value, not merely information learned in meetings.

- Not all boardroom information qualifies as a trade secret: only information with independent economic value and not generally known/in public domain.
- General business plans, budgets, product mix, - broader list of information held to not qualify as confidential information.

Niranjan Shankar Golikari

Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited

- Technical processes and specialised machinery details for producing tyre cord yarn.
- Technical information, knowledge, data, training materials and operational secrets to the employee during employment.
- Confidential Know-how through secrecy agreement.

- After receiving training and gaining knowledge of confidential production techniques, Golikari left the respondent’s service and joined a competitor.
- Engaged in similar tyre cord yarn manufacture raising the concern of divulging, using, or indirectly benefitting the rival with the information acquired.

- January 1961: Foreign collaborators transferred technical know-how to the respondent
-March 1963: Golikari accepted offer and signed the standard employment contract; received training involving confidential details.
- October-November 1964: resigned purportedly to join a rival company
- 1964: Suit seeking injunction restraining Golikari from using confidential information or working in rival manufacture company.

- Confidential knowledge and technical processes went beyond ordinary supervision duties and amounted to specialised know-how and trade secrets.
- Injunction was limited in scope related to the period of the contract and to similar employment in the same manufacturing process and was held not overly restrictive.

- technical know-how and specialised production processes can be protected as trade secrets.
- negative covenants during the term of employment to preserve confidentiality and exclusivity are not void restraints of trade when reasonable.

Steer Engineering Private Limited

Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC, Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare (UK) Trading Limited, and Smithkline Beecham Limited

- Proprietary extrusion process know-how
- Process parameters and know-how
- Confidential test databases and results
- Additional confidential technical data

Confidential technical information and trade secrets- extrusion technology and test databases were included without authorisation in an international patent application filed by the respondents.
Disclosure and misuse of proprietary know-how.

- August 2013: Master Services Agreement (MSA) entered between appellant and one of the respondents
- 2013–2015: Appellant developed its extrusion process parameters and proprietary databases under the MSA.
- May 2019: Appellant claims to have learned about the patent application during Singapore arbitration proceedings
- July 2019: Commercial suit filed; Trial court rejected interlocutory application

- Confidential information must be clearly identified, capable of being treated as secret, and shown not to be in the public domain.
- No prima facie case made out because the appellant had not demonstrated when or how the purported confidential information came into existence.
- Patent application was published in 2016, and that information purportedly disclosed therein was in the public domain for nearly three years before the suit was filed in 2019 - weakens equitable relief.

- Courts require clear identification of the specific confidential information or trade secret claimed, not broad descriptions.
- Information published in public domain - undercuts equitable relief.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/171581775/

Sundial Communications Private Limited & Ors

- Concept notes and story materials for television
- Pilot videos/films produced
- Business plans around the TV Serial

- Confidential Information materials were not public and were communicated to the defendant for broadcasting under an implied obligation of confidentiality.
- Defendant allegedly used that information to produce and broadcast a similar television serial, depriving plaintiffs of commercial opportunity

- Feb 2002: Plaintiffs register their original concept “Kanhaiyya” with the Film Writers’ Association
- April 2002: Plaintiffs present the concept confidentially to the defendant’s director;
- October 2002: Plaintiffs send a detailed concept note and pilot of “Krish Kanhaiyya” to the defendant
- Marh 2003: Defendant commences broadcasting a TV show titled “Kanhaiyya” alleged to be very similar.

- Injunction granted. Four-factor test laid down: identify clearly the information relied on; show that it was handed over in circumstances of confidence; how it was information that had to be treated as confidential; and that it was used or threatened to be used without consent
- Held to be a case of breach of confidence. Defendants held to have broadcast a programme strikingly similar in principle and substance.
- Defendant misused confidential material entrusted to them in confidence and for commercial exploitation only via the plaintiffs.
- Confidential information must be communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, such as negotiations and explicit assurances.

- The court treated the confidential material in the context of breach of confidence.
- Confidential concepts developed with skill and commercial backing as protectable under equitable principles akin to trade secrets.

Burlington Home Shopping Private Limited

- Customer/clientele database of mailing list details;
- Proprietary business information inherent in the database

- Defendant, a former employee of the plaintiff, allegedly obtained a copy of the databases before leaving the company.
- Used the same to set up a competing business and solicit plaintiff clientele

- 3 years prior to 1995: Plaintiff compiles the customer database with time, money and labour
- Before October 1995: Rajnish Chibber, allegedly obtains a copy of the database after leaving employment to compete with plaintiff

- Confidential customer lists and compilations, if developed with skill and maintained as secret have commercial value and are treated as proprietary information that the court should protect.

- Although the case was primarily related to copyright protection, it aligns with trade secret protection principles of today.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090a4fe4b0149711171e27

Hi Tech Systems and Services Limited

- Computer databases stored in digital form
- Files, programs, know-how, formulae and the like
- Customer details and details of the plaintiff’s principals

- The defendants, who were ex-employees, had access to and acquired trade secrets and confidential information during their employment.
- After departing, formed or joined companies in the same line of business.
- There was a real or imminent risk that they would use or disclose that information to unfairly compete

- 2014: Suit instituted alleging misuse of trade secrets/confidential information
- 2015: Calcutta High Court heard the application for revocation of leave under Letters Patent

- the suit was held to be maintainable.
- Held that prior employment relationship was proven and alleged misuse of the trade secrets.

- did not decide on the merits but precent for demurrer suits to be confined to the face of the plaint and cannot be used to decide on merits and facts.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3b84a93261a672b2de8

Navigator Logistics Ltd

- Logistics and freight-forwarding company
- Customer databases and customer lists are digitally stored
- Financial records and commercially sensitive data
- business data stored on work laptop

Retention and misuse of confidential business data and trade secrets, customer lists and internal records after resignation to benefit a competing business.
Despite confidentiality and non-compete clauses in the employment contract.

-May 2016: Former employees resigned from the appellants' services
-June 2016: trial court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from using/divulging confidential information and trade secrets; Local Commissioners appointed
- November 2016 to January 2018: Former employees filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC challenging the plaint
- September 2018: Trial court rejected the plaint

- Plaint held to be maintainable.
- The pleadings failed to clearly identify specific confidential information or trade secrets.
- The appellant did not distinguish which parts of its business data were confidential, how they differed from industry norms

- General customer lists and business information in logistics and freight forwarders often accessible in the public domain.
- It cannot be assumed confidential without detailed evidence.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97547525/

L.S. Davar and Company and Ors.

Defendant being in senior role has access to confidential and proprietary information.
Upon resignation, threatened to disclose the same despite signing confidentiality and non-competition agreements.

- June 1994 & September 1994: Dr. Sudipta Banerjee and Dr. Indira Banerjee join L.S. Davar & Co. as senior professionals.
- June 2020 & Jan 2021: The three defendants resign and join a competing firm.
- 2021: L.S. Davar & Co. files a civil suit alleging breach of confidentiality and misuse of trade secrets, trial court grants ad interim injunction

- Injunction narrowed to: disclosure, divulge, or share confidential information gathered during employment until final disposal of the injunction application on merits.
- Reaffirmed that equity and breach of confidence principles can protect trade secrets and confidential information arising from employment relationships.

- Recogniton that despite being a service oriented firm, the senior professionals are privy to privelged and sensitive client and firm information.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155018460/

Mr. Jan Peter Ravi Karnik

- Pricing and fare structures
- Customer and agent databases
- Customer and agent databases
- Operational know-how

Restrain Mr. Karnik from joining a competitor, relying on clauses in his employment contract and likelihood of misuse of confidential information.

- Mr. Karnik employed in a senior managerial position at Jet Airways
- Resigned and proposed to join a competitor airline shortly after.

- Mere posession of knowledge does not restrain employment.
- Employees are entitled to use their general skills, experience, and knowledge after leaving employment.
- Only specific, identifiable trade secrets can be protected.

Established the distinction between trade secrets which are protectable and general managerial and industry knowledge which is not protectable.

Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd

Shailendra Shivam And Ors.; Pradham Biotech Private Ltd.

- Genetic data and hybrid seed development process;
- Databases and DNA Fingerprints profiles and commercially successful hybrids
- Information giving competitive advantage

- When defendants left the plaintiff firm, they formed competing entities or joined them.
- Alleged that they violated confidentiality and non-compete obligations along with the unauthorised usage of the confidential information.

- November 2001: Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Seeds India, later terminated
- March 2003: key employees of Plaintiff left and joined/formed Defendant entities
- January 2004: Interim injunction was initially granted in favor of the Plaintiff.

- Interim Injunction vacated
- Legal test for confidentiality: information must have the necessary quality of confidence, it must have been provided in a relationship of trust, and there must be unauthorised use to the claimant’s detriment.
- Mere similarity of seed varieties was insufficient evidence of trade secret misuse.

- Information is not a trade secret if it is not proven confidential and reasonably protected.
- Genetic or scientific data must demonstrate originality or confidentiality to attract legal protection.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183763759/

Arvind Mills Company Ltd.

- Weaving Master
- Secrets, process, or information related to the employer

- Respondent worked with the appellant under a service agreement, which was for 3 years, with negative covenants regarding confidential information.
- The respondent left before the 3-year term expired and joined a competitor.

- March 1944: parties entered into a service agreement.
- Mid 1945: Deshpande left respondent’s employment before the expiry of the three-year term and joined Rohit Mills as a weaving Master.

- Injunction restraining appellant from working in any competitor company till end of contractual period and against divulging or sharing trade secrets or any information related to the respondent during the same.
- Negative covenants tied to fixed-term employment agreements are not inherently void simply because they restrict an employee from serving elsewhere during the contractual period.
- Confidentiality clause preventing disclosure of “secrets or information” was a valid protective provision, in legitimate interest of the employer and enforceable through injunctive relief.

- Contractual confidentiality clauses aimed at protecting employer’s business information upheld and enforceable without a standalone statutory law

Narendra Mohan Singh, Manisha Jha

Keta Mehta, Maya Movies Private Limited, Viacom 18 Picutres, Maya Mahendra Jhakar

-script or screenplay draft
-narrative structure
-creative and narrative elements: unique and not public knowledge

The script was shared in confidence with the defendant and contained creative elements not in the public domain. Defendants used the same for their film.

-January 2010: 2nd plaintiff completed writing his script and applied for copyright registration
- August 2010: Copyright registration completed.
- July 2010: They shared the script with the third defendant in confidence
- August 2012: Allege 1st defendants making a film using their confidential material
- July 2015: Plaintiffs saw the film trailer and moved court, alleging infringement and breach of confidence

- Four-factor test laid down: identify clearly the information relied on; show that it was handed over in circumstances of confidence; how it was information that had to be treated as confidential; and that it was used or threatened to be used without consent.
- refused to grant the interim injunction
- narrative of movie based on public domain facts (Dashrath Manjhi’s well-known life story)

- Confidential information in intellectual works requires identification of specific elements that were shared in confidence and are not public domain.
- General ideas or broad narrative elements, especially those based on public facts, may not qualify for protection.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54122102/

Saregama India Ltd. & Mahesh Iyer

- Synopsis and Screenplay Draft
- Confidential communication: collaboration and revisions.

Wadhwa claimed his materials which were shared in confidence and that Saregama had access to in a confidential business context; it elements were used to make the film Zombivli.

- August 2018: Wadhwa shared his first draft screenplay (registered with SWA) with Saregama.
- December 2018: Wadhwa shared his second draft screenplay (also SWA-registered) with Saregama.
-January 2019: Saregama sent detailed feedback on the second draft but disengaged
- July 2020: Saregama announced production of the film “Zombivli.

- Dismissed interim application for injunction.
- Plaintiff lacked precision in isolating the exact confidential parts that were allegedly misused, rendering the breach-of-confidence claim weak.
- Four-factor test laid down: identify clearly the information relied on; show that it was handed over in circumstances of confidence; how it was information that had to be treated as confidential; and that it was used or threatened to be used without consent.
- refused to grant the interim injunction
- narrative of movie based on public domain facts (Dashrath Manjhi’s well-known life story)

- Confidential creative material versus general ideas/themes (which are not protectable)
- High threshold needed at the interim stage to show that confidential information.

https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2021-11/c0d19a27-6562-46bc-b47b-e23a72038a47/Tarun_Wadhwa_v__Saregama_India_Ltd__.pdf

Stellar Information Technology Pvt. Ltd.

- Data recovery and related IT services
- formulas, R&D Techniques, processes, software, data, know-how
- Information about costs, profits, markets, sales

Alleged breach of Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement and Employee Confidentiality Agreement by using or disclosing proprietary information and trade secrets

- Before 2016: Defendants (Nos. 1–3) were employed by the plaintiff and signed confidentiality agreements;
- Before Aug 2016: Defendants left employment and set up competing business (Techchef) to offer similar services
- June 2016: Interim injunction granted in plaintiff’s favor restraining defendants

- Definition of “confidential information” is extremely broad.
- Information in the public domain cannot be treated as confidential or a trade secret.
- Customer names requiring data recovery services were not proprietary.
- Did not produce evidence showing that the defendants had taken or copied specific proprietary databases

- Trade secret protection requires proprietary information not in public, not merely broad generic confidentiality clauses.
- Public domain information cannot be elevated to secret status merely by contract.
- Confidentiality clauses that effectively operate as blanket restrictions on competition beyond protection are not enforceable.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65671346/

Beckman Coulter International S.A.

- Confidential information in the context of a Distribution Agreement between Wipro (petitioner) and Beckman Coulter (respondent)
- technical/operational information shared in the course of the business relationship.

- Respondents shouldn't employ persons who were or had been working for Wipro
- Enforce confidentiality obligations arising from commercial terms agreed between the parties.

- January 2002: Original Canvassing Representative Agreement between Wipro and Beckman Coulter
- May 2004: A letter was issued extending the 2002 agreement’s terms through 31 Dec 2005.
- 2003 & 2004: Additional letters (21 Jan 2003; 10 Dec 2003) referenced sales and confidentiality terms, but were not treated as full contracts.
- Late 2005: Beckman Coulter allegedly issued an advertisement that solicited Wipro’s employees and led to resignations.
- December 2005: Court granted ex-parte interim order restraining employment of former Wipro employees.

- Post-termination restrictive covenants that restrict commercial freedom are void.
- Confidentiality obligations were recognized, but they must be interpreted in conjunction with contract law principles such as restraint of trade under Section 27, Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Trade secrets consist of protected, confidential information not readily known or accessible.

- confidentiality clauses that may protect sensitive business information, in line with the framework concerning restraint-of-trade law.
- interaction of confidentiality protections with employee mobility and competition law principles in India.

Ambiance India (P) Ltd.

- Trade information / technical know-how
- Client and vendor relationships
- Business methods that, if revealed, could harm plaintiff’s commercial interests;

Defendant was prohibited for two years after termination from working with present, past or prospective customers, vendors, importers, agents, etc., and for three years after termination from revealing trade information that could harm the plaintiff.

- August 2003: Employment Agreement executed; confidentiality and post-employment restrictions included
-June 2004: Defendant left plaintiff’s employment and secured a position with M/s Indigo Orient Ltd., a business client of the plaintiff

- No prima facie case for injunction restraining the defendant’s employment or use of confidential information.
- Trade secret must be protected, confidential information acquired during employment, not generally known, and whose divulgence would harm the employer

- general business knowledge or skills acquired in employment do not qualify as trade secrets
- interaction of confidentiality protections with employee mobility and competition law principles in India.

Sandhya Organic Chemicals (P) Ltd.

United Phosphorous Ltd.

- New manufacturing process for Aluminium Phosphide (AIP) and Zinc Phosphide (ZnP)- substituting white/yellow phosphorus instead of red phosphorus
- Process details, engineering drawings, specifications, and technical know-how

Alleged that employee bound by a secrecy agreement, wrongfully disclosed and used confidential process, information and designs in breach of confidence. And other employees induced or colluded.

- 1992–1994: Plaintiff developed the new process for AIP/ZnP using white phosphorus; (Defendant No. 3) involved in project with access to confidential information
- June 1994: Defendant No. 3’s employment terminated by plaintiff for loss of confidence
- July 1996: Plaintiff obtained evidence showing defendants were selling products allegedly made using its process

- Set aside the interim injunctions granted by lower court.
- Mere development of a process does not confer a proprietary right in the absence of patent or statutory protection.
- confidentiality during employment is legitimate; a perpetual bar on use of learned skills or processes after termination without demonstrable secrecy protection was considered impermissible.

- Contractual obligation to maintain secrecy must be carefully distinguished from a restraint of trade;
- Latter is void under Section 27 unless it protects proprietary rights legitimately and does not unreasonably restrict trade

Tube Investments of India Ltd.

- Specialized manufacturing machines: swaging machine, dooming machine, fork blade bending machine
- Confidential drawings and specifications
- Manufacturing processes, technical data and tooling
- Confidential customer and supplier information and competitive business data

- Defendant allegedly misused confidential drawings and designs for machines that were exclusive to the plaintiff’s manufacturing process.
- Allegedly misrepresented to subcontractors that these drawings were for the plaintiff’s associates, causing them to manufacture machines for his own use while still employed by the plaintiff.

- November 1982: Defendant employed by plaintiff (later transferred to plaintiff from another employer).
- 1980s–early 1990s: Defendant held various managerial posts with access to confidential drawings and customer data.
- February 1994: Defendant resigned
- April 1994: Defendant relieved from service.

- Set aside interlocutory injunction order.
- Plaintiff ought to establish that the information was proprietary and confidential, and not generally known in the industry.
Additionally, Plaintiff is required to prove: irreparable harm would result without injunction; and balance of convenience favored the plaintiff

- For injunctive relief, plaintiffs must make out a strong prima facie case of misuse of trade secrets and demonstrate irreparable harm.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea77f2607dba36e94560e6

Superintendence Co. of India

- Tade secrets and proprietary techniques for quality testing and control,
- clientele connections,

After the respondent’s employment ended, he set up a business similar to his former employer’s, allegedly, handling quality testing and inspection services (the area where confidential techniques and trade connections were relevant).

- March 1971: Respondent employed by Superintendence Company as Branch ManageR;
- December 1978: Termination became effective.
- April 1979: Employer filed suit and sought ad interim injunction
enforcing restraint.
- 25 May 1979: Injunction was granted and later confirmed at trial level
- July 1979: High Court Division Bench reversed the interim injunction.

- Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision.
- post-service restraints on employment/business are in restraint of trade and therefore void.
- Recognises proprietary business techniques and clientele connections as interests an employer may wish to protect. However, protection of trade secrets cannot be used to enforce an otherwise invalid restraint of trade beyond what the statute permits.

Even legitimate confidential business information (e.g., methods, client lists) cannot justify invalid post-employment restrictions under Section 27.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1186410/

- Service: travel and tourism trade shows Organizer
- Commercial and financial data
- Business practices and operational information
- Marketing and strategic plans

Confidential information was shared on the understanding that Respondent No. 1 would enter a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) or acquisition, and that the information would be used only in that context.
Alleged that the information was misused to launch a business that was in direct competition with the plaintiff.

- March 2013: Fairfest and Respondent No. 1 executed the NDA
- March 2013: Fairfest disclosed confidential information (financial and marketing)
- April 2013: Respondent No. 1 offered to acquire the business; Fairfest counter-offered
- January 2014: Respondent No. 2 (with Respondent No. 1’s involvement) held a travel industry event that competed with Fairfest’s shows

- show a prima facie case of confidentiality and misuse of information to justify an injunction.
- plaint did not disclose clearly what confidential information was given and how exactly it was used

Relief on confidentiality/trade secret grounds remains discretionary, and if the Court finds the alleged confidential information either not truly proprietary or insufficiently identified, injunctions can be denied

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25939773/

SaNOtize Research and Development Corp.

- Nitric Oxide Nasal Spray (NONS/NORS)
- specific pH and dose that was safe and effective was novel, proprietary and confidential
- precise quantities of sodium nitrite and citric acid and the specific clinical trial data establishing safety and efficacy

Lupin and associated respondents misused confidential and proprietary information shared under a Confidentiality Agreement dated 17 May 2021, through a virtual data room, launching a competing product without authorisation.

- April 2021: Lupin approached SaNOtize regarding potential collaboration.
- April 2021: Lupin applied to CDSCO for a test license to study nitric-oxide nasal solutions
- May 2021: Parties entered into a Confidentiality Agreement and shared confidential information
- August 2021: Lupin notified SaNOtize that it would discontinue negotiations.
- October 2021: Lupin launched NOXGUARD nasal spray in India; Single Judge vacated ad interim injunction sought by SaNOtize.

- Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of the interim injunction
- Plaintiff had not sufficiently traced and proved the precise confidential information allegedly disclosed to Lupin
- Lupin’s NOXGUARD had been certified as an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine and thus not subject to the same clinical trial regime

- Mere access to confidential material under an NDA does not automatically lead to a finding of misappropriation;
- Precisely identify proprietary information and show real misuse

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45602011/

Sirmour Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Kepler Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

- Product brand names/marks
- associated product compositions and launch strategy
- market positioning, regulatory plans and launch timelines

Alleged that defendant employee (and his spouse/related company) Obtained confidential product names/brand plans during employment;
Resigned and then used that information to launch competing products under identical or confusingly similar brand names

- August 2007: Second defendant employed by LifeStar Pharma (the plaintiff group) as Sales Manager
- November 2013: Plaintiffs filed four suits and obtained ex-parte interim orders restraining defendants from selling certain pharmaceutical products.
- November 2013: Defendants applied for discharge of the interim order.

- Alleging brand names as “trade secrets” is not sufficient. Specific elements of confidential/secret information misuse must be demonstrated
- Brand names/marks themselves are not trade secrets — they are intellectual property rights (marks/trade names) but not inherently confidential trade secrets.

- Trade secrets must not conflated with other IP rights like trademarks.
- Mere ownership or proposal of a brand does not automatically make it a confidential trade secret.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36757730/

Laxmiraj Seetharam Nayak

- Trade secrets and confidential business information relating to the advertising company
- commercial/strategic business knowledge
- revenue strategies, marketing policies, franchise agreements, affiliate/joint ventures, and future business plans

Star India Private Limited (a major television content producer and broadcaster), claimed that its senior executive became privy to confidential and proprietary information in the course of his employment; resigned the company and joined competitors.

- June 1993:Defendant No. 1 joined plaintiff and rose through the ranks to Executive Vice President, Advertising Sales
- June 2001: Service contract with confidentiality and non-competition obligations (Clause 12) was executed
- September 2002: Defendant No. 1 tendered resignation
- November 2002: Trial Court granted ad interim injunction restraining resignation/competition

- refused to confirm the interim injunction and denied the restraint
- plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case showing that the defendant had acquired identifiable trade secrets or confidential information whose misuse required judicial restraint
-General business knowledge or strategies are not trade secrets if they are already known within the industry or derived from routine duties

Knowledge or experience gained during employment including standard business methods, negotiation techniques, and public knowledge does not constitute a trade secret warranting injunctions against post-employment competition

- Filter manufacturing and testing machines
- Technical know-how, manufacturing processes
- List of suppliers, parts details, technical blueprints, software/manuals
- Engineering designs and CNC controlled pleating machine concept

Alleged that defendants (Nos. 1–3), being senior officials in the engineering division, fraudulently photocopied and took away industrial drawings/designs, know-how and customer/supplier lists.

- 1978: Expansion of plaintiff’s business, including engineering division developing proprietary machines.
- suit filed before May 2002: Plaintiff filed suit in the Delhi High Court against defendants.

- High Court refused to grant the interim injunctions
- Plaintiff was found to have suppressed material facts about the business’ origins and related firms involved
- Claimed Confidential Information too general and lacked particular documents.

- Equitable relief (injunction) requires clean hands and full disclosure of material facts.
- Trade secrets must be specifically and clearly pleaded and proved; broad or general assertions are inadequate

Indiana Gratings Pvt. Ltd.

Anand Udyog Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

- Technical drawings - electro fold grating machines
- improvements and indigenous design work

Entrusted to certain employees under terms of employment contracts containing confidentiality clauses with respect to those drawings.
Allegedly, defendants & former employees, obtained and reproduced these drawings without authorisation to manufacture competing machine

- December 1997: Agreement executed under which drawings created by employees were assigned to the plaintiff company
- 1990s–2001: Plaintiffs developed the first indigenous Electro Fold machine based on the drawings.
- 2005: Plaintiffs realized some drawings were missing and photocopies were made by former employee-defendants; investigation began
- March 2005: purchase orders placed by defendants for machine parts matching plaintiffs’ drawing dimensions

- plaintiffs established a prima facie case and granted equitable relief.
- supported claims with sufficient evidence such as confidentiality clause, evidence of access and striking visual similarity to drawing and competing machines of defendants.
- confidential information has been used as a springboard for unfair competition, courts will enforce equitable restraints on misuse,

To succeed on a breach of confidence claim, information must have the necessary quality of confidence i.e., known only to a limited circle, not public, imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence (e.g., confidentiality clauses in contracts) and Unauthorised use or disclosure.

https://vlex.in/vid/indiana-gratings-private-limited-572054118

Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd.

- Databases and electronic records
- Detailed contact information and marketing intelligence
- Electronic datasets and process information

Alleged that the defendants, while employed, gained access to the confidential databases and information and then misappropriated them taking copies and sending them to personal devices, and used those datasets to build a competing business

- 2001–2009 (approx.): Plaintiff claimed to have developed its confidential database over the years.
- August 2008: Defendant No. 1 joined the plaintiff as an executive with access to electronic databases.
- April 2008: Defendant No. 2 joined as correspondent with similar database access
- October 2009: The two defendants resigned and thenewsxpress.com was established and became a competitive publication.
- 2010–2013: Suit was pending; no ex-parte interim relief was granted within this period

- High Court did not find prima facie evidence that the plaintiff had established proprietary trade secrets or properly pleaded how those secrets were misused.
- Vague references to databases, without specific details of composition, source, and proprietary contribution, are insufficient to constitute trade secrets or confidential information.

- Court questioned whether the plaintiff had established proprietary rights and confidentiality in the alleged “databases” and “confidential data.”
- Merely accumulating data over time or possessing a “database” does not automatically make it a protectable trade secret — the plaintiff must show original work and rightful ownership.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18739837/

- Reality TV
- Format, Structure, and elements of the Show

-The concept was copyrighted and confidential, and thus had a duty of good faith and confidentiality in handling the concept details.
- Defendants allegedly appropriated plaintiff’s confidential concept information and using it to produce and promote their own reality show based on same theme.

- Early 1997: Plaintiff developed and first disclosed details of the Swayamvar concept.
- December 1997: Plaintiff registered the concept as a literary work under the Copyright Act.
- October 2000: Plaintiff presented concept details and PPT to defendants at a meeting in Mumbai, handing over a detailed concept note
- May 2001: Plaintiff learned defendants were planning to launch a reality show, Shubh Vivah, on similar lines.
- September 2001: Plaintiff filed the suit against defendants alleging breach of confidence and copyright violation

- granted limited interim relief: injunction was qualified and not perpetual
- Restrained from telecasting or exhibiting their programme Shubh Vivah, or any show based on the matchmaking concept, for a period sufficient to allow the plaintiff to telecast its own programme
- If a concept is developed into an articulated format with detailed structure and expression, and is treated confidentially, it may acquire a protectable character

- An express contract is not strictly necessary to protect confidential information, when proprietary information is shared in circumstances where the recipient knows its confidential nature.

Global Broadcast News Ltd.

- Television Programme - Work in Progress
- Detailed concept note
- Conceptual, structural elements and detailed narrative framework and presentation.

Concept notes and production plan to the defendants in confidence; defendants, without licence or consent, allegedly used the plaintiff’s concept to develop and broadcast a reality programme “Summer Showdown”; materially similar in format, execution, and treatment

- November 2005: Concept note was registered with the Film Writers Association, Mumbai.
- March 2006: Plaintiff shared the concept with defendants;
- 14 May 2007: Defendants began broadcasting Summer Showdown which plaintiff alleges was based on her concept.
- 19 May 2007: Plaintiff became aware of the programme and alleged breach.
- 23 May 2007: Plaintiff filed her Motion for ad-interim relief

- Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favour of the plaintiff
- Plaintiff had clearly identified the confidential information; the material was disclosed in confidence to defendants, implying a duty not to use it without permission.
- Made out a seriously arguable case that the information was of a type that deserved confidentiality protection and that defendants used it without licence.

- A party may claim confidentiality even in relation to a concept or idea, not just a fixed literary expression, if disclosed in confidence.
- Courts have recognised that unauthorised use of confidential concept notes, especially where they form the basis for a commercial production demands equitable relief.

Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.

- TV serial concept notes (detailed story arcs, character outlines, pitch materials, plot development, family dynamics, etc
- Detailed creative material in various versions

Defendant broadcaster, to whom they provided detailed concept notes and creative material in confidence for production discussions, used that creative material to propose a rival television serial without consent.

- March 2011: Plaintiffs developed the original TV show concept (Paachva Mausam Pyaar Ka).
- 11 June 2013: Plaintiffs registered the concept note with the Film Writers Association to protect the creative material.
- 2013–2014: Concept notes were shared with the defendant broadcaster during production discussions.

- Bombay High Court granted interim protection in favor of the plaintiffs
- Plaintiff had clearly identified the confidential information; the material was disclosed in confidence to defendants, implying a duty not to use it without permission.

Creative material was not mere abstract idea but had detailed expression and unique attributes that could be protected both under breach-of-confidence principles and the Copyright Act

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162638144/

Venkateshwarlu Guduru

- Oil Sea Manufacturing Business
- Customer lists
- Quality manuals and internal technical documents;
- Purchase orders, inventory and similar business-specific documentation;
- Commercial information not in the public domain

Alleged that Appellants acquired or accessed their proprietary trade secrets/ confidential information (by a past relationship of employment or commercial association) and were misusing or threatening to misuse it.

- 2022: The respondents filed suit seeking permanent injunction, damages etc. against breach of confidentiality and trade secret misappropriation.
- 03 October 2024: Commercial Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from exploiting or disseminating respondents’ alleged trade secrets.
- 2025: The appellants filed a Commercial Court Appeal (CCA No. 17 of 2025) against that injunction.

-High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court.
- A claim of trade secret infringement requires the information to be clearly identified, defined and specific.

- Blanket nature of the injunction was disproportionate and interfered with the appellants’ constitutional right to carry on trade.
- Burden of Proof: Plaintiff must go beyond generalization and demonstrate what specific information is being protected and in what manner it was acquired or misused

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105415188/

Prof. Dr. Cluadio De Simone & Anr.

Actial Farmaceutica SRL. & Ors.

Probiotic nutritional formulation blending multiple bacterial strains in specific ratios for therapeutic uses

Plaintiffs sued defendants (including Actial Farmaceutica, CD Pharma India, VSL Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma etc.) seeking permanent injunctions.

- 10 February 1998: U.S. Patent Filing
- 9 Febraruary 2015: U.S. Patent expiry
- 2004-2014: Know-how agreements entered
- 2019: Suit instituted in Delhi HC

- Suit dismissed since plaintiffs failed to disclose any cause of action.
-Confidential know-how does not constitute a proprietary right enforceable in rem in India unless protected as a tradable statutory right

Confidential know-how may be protected under contract as a personal right in personam, but it does not create a proprietary right in the information itself enforceable against third parties.
Information in the public domain is not a trade secret in law and cannot be given patent-like protection indefinitely.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e73c0f29fca1959329fe97d