The bonus company claimed that part ofits work required a skill that made it possible to identify which assets should not be invested in generating levies, in order to avoid unnecessary expenses and cumbersomeness. But here too, we are talking about general statements. More than that; These statements contradict her own claim that hundreds of significant cases were closed without yielding a "worn penny" (paragraph 45 of her summaries in the counterclaim). But if this is the case, it seems that expertise has not been established as claimed in this context, and there is no choice but towork on the basis of trialand error. But these do not amount to a trade secret.
Confidential lists of contacts and vendors have not been established
- Accordingly To Section 5 According to the Commercial Torts Law, a bonus company must prove that its list of suppliers and contacts is not in the public domain.N is Lawfully disclosed easily by others; And that its secrecy gives its owner a business advantage over its competitors. It must also be proven that reasonable measures have been taken to maintain the confidentiality of the list. To meet this There was an aliyah To prove a special effort in formulating it (see Dr. Keren Anisfeld The Trade Secret in Law - Between Self-Remedy and an Intellectual Property Right 100, H.S. 23 (2018( (hereinafter: Innisfeld().
All of these have not been substantiated. From Ms. Levy's testimony it emerged that the company's list of suppliers was not kept in special secrecy (p. 170, S. 1-3), and that the list of contacts was not secured or kept in a secret place (p. 169 Q. 25-23). Mr. Kalfa also confirmed in his interrogation that the company did not have a secret list of suppliers (p. 578, S. 16-14).
No Secret Customer List Proof
87. Here, too, the burden of establishing that the list of customers amounts to a trade secret rests with the Bonus Company and Mr. Goldian. This burden cannot be a trivial matter, since addressing customers is the bread and butter of any competitor in the relevant market. Denying him the opportunity to do so will set a disproportionate threshold on competition in our markets.
In this context, the words of Miguel Deutsch in his book Commercial Torts and Trade Secrets 424-425 (2002( (hereinafter: Deutsch( are appropriate: "The problem lies in the proper legal policy. The concern is of unreasonable harm to freedom of occupation and freedom of competition. The struggle to acquire the business relationship - with customers, suppliers and others - is the essence of the competition, and blocking access to the market on this issue, for others, imposes a problematic limitation. The concern is that trade secret law will be used in order to prevent legitimate solicitation of customers... Therefore, only when the list of customers or suppliers carries with it the necessary burden of confidentiality, after proper examination, is there room to provide protection for the list under these laws. In other cases, the implication of granting protection may be the improper creation of an obligation to avoid competition."