Therefore, when the parties signed the second agreement, on September 15, 2009, it can no longer be said that the non-competition clause was introduced due to the special training that Mr. Zaruk received. In any case, such special training was not established.
Reputation
- The Bonus Company claimed in its summaries in the main claim (at paragraphs 90 and 163(a( that the non-competition clause was justified in light of the great reputation that Mr. Zaruk bought as a partner, which he used to open doors for its customers.
Thus, for example, Mr. Goldian testified in relation to Mr. Zaruk that "when he is a manager he goes into his guts, he can say that he is me, to go as he did, he went with Bertenthal to the Tel Aviv municipality and he would accept them to the Tel Aviv municipality. The treasurer would not have received them without him being under the [the] gift of a bonus" (p. 441, s.1 ff.).
- This argument, standing alone, will not be able to help the defendants. After all, every worker, when he does his work, Gaining Reputation. And this reputation can help him find new jobs afterwards or new business activities. The mere fact that an employee will acquire goodwill as a result of his work cannot justify a restriction on his employment in the future. andInsofar as there is no reason to restrict his occupation, andAll employees in the previous workplace take advantage of the reputation thatProcurement for the purpose of his new field of activity, and there is nothing wrong with this.
This is also required by instructions Section 7(a( 30Commercial Torts Law, which I discussed above (see paragraph 76). If a person's use of his professional knowledge, which becomes part of his professional skills, does not constitute theft of a trade secret, so does the exploitation of a reputation built by the use of this knowledge.
Therefore, the issue of goodwill, when it stands alone - in a reality in which no trade secret has been established - will not be able to save the non-competition clause from disqualification.