Moreover, when we come to interpret the term "trade secret", we must take into account the public interest, its right to freedom of information, and the question of whether it is meaningful that the "secret" should be known to the public. Sometimes this consideration outweighs the protection that must be given to the employer's 'trade secret.'"
(ibid ., at p. 126)
- Regarding the methods of proving a trade secret, the President says the following: "In the framework of proving the 'trade secret', the previous employer must also prove the scope of the trade secret and the time it must remain a 'secret'. Moreover, the previous employer must prove that it is a "secret" and that it has taken reasonable measures to ensure the protection of the trade secret, such as: exposing it to employees who need it for their work and not exposing it to other employees or keeping the material in a protected place.
(ibid., at p. 127)
- And what is not a "trade secret" - to which the Honorable President responds: "The basic rule is that the knowledge and experience that an employee has acquired in his work become part of his skills and he is entitled to use them as he wishes. When an employee moves to a new workplace, he is not obligated to "erase" from his memory all the knowledge and experience he accumulated in his previous job; This is as long as the employee does not use a 'trade secret' belonging to his previous employer..."
(ibid ., at p. 128)
- The Honorable President noted the cases in which the Tribunal will give effect to a stipulation restricting an employee's freedom of occupation, and they are as follows:
"A. Use of a registered patent or copyright.
- Unlawful use of trade secrets.
III. The employer invested special resources in the training of the employee, and the contract stipulated a commitment by the employee to work for the employer for a minimum period of time.
- The employee received special consideration for his undertaking not to compete with the employer upon the termination of the employment relationship between them.
- The examination of good faith and the duty of trust between the parties requires the enforcement of the stipulation."
(ibid., at p. 123)
- We will examine below whether the defendant breached the employment agreement and whether the plaintiff's trade secrets were exposed to him according to the tests of law and case law.
Did the plaintiff invest special resources in training the plaintiff to justify the restrictions imposed on him in the employment agreement?
- The plaintiff argues between the surfers and the customers (such as Casino UK, Casino IE, Sport Betting UK, Sport Betting IE). These are sites that compare online casino providers in England and Ireland, as well as a site that compares online sports betting providers in England and Ireland (paragraphs 30-33 of Uzan affidavit).
- The plaintiff made an overlap for the defendant in order to train him for work - for a job he was not familiar with:
77"D. Fruchtmann: I refer you to the section 20 To your affidavit there you say "All that was required for me to start working for the plaintiff as a business development manager is a standard overlap, As part of it, I was introduced to the field of appellation, and the various aspects of my work as a business development manager in the plaintiff". Who are the people in"Moonshot" which have given you the standard overlap that you refer to in the 20 To your affidavit?