9 Cited authorities

Tom Doherty Associates, Inc. v. Saban Enter
60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 879 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding injunctive relief appropriate “to avoid the unfairness of denying an injunction to a plaintiff on the ground that money damages are available, only to confront the plaintiff at a trial on the merits with the rule that [the quantification of] damages must be based on more than speculation.”
Faiveley Transp. v. Wabtec Corp.
559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 520 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "information concerning customer preferences and ordering patterns could easily be . . . obtained by contacting those customers directly," that information could not be deemed a trade secret
North Atlantic Instruments v. Haber
188 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 293 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "'loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages' because ' trade secret once lost is, of course, lost forever
Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import
175 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 110 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that if the Japanese word "otokoyama" described a generic type of sake, it could not be trademarked in order to prevent other sake vendors from using the term to describe sake of that type
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. v. Batra
430 F. Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 72 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding knowledge of "brand strategies" and future product plans was trade secret information
FMC Corp. v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Industrial Co.
730 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 100 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that loss of trade secrets was an irreparable harm that could not be measured in money because ‘a trade secret once lost is, of course, lost forever’
Payment Alliance International, Inc. v. Ferreira
530 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 26 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that non-compete in employment agreement was ancillary to the sale of a business where the purpose of the sale was to obtain seller's employees and the closing documents provided that execution of the employment agreement was a necessary precondition of the sale
Liberty Power Corp., LLC v. Katz
10-CV-1938 (NGG) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2011) Cited 5 times
Finding that harm was not irreparable where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's misappropriation would result in lost contracts with a "finite-albeit large-number of customers"
Leibowitz v. Aternity, Inc.
10 CV 2289 (ADS) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 14, 2010) Cited 3 times
Applying Massachusetts law and finding no abrogation where non-compete clause stated that "[a]ny subsequent change or changes in the [employee's] duties, salary or compensation will not affect the validity or scope of this Agreement"

KLX Inc. et al v. Nissen

9 Cited authorities

Holding that where "information concerning customer preferences and ordering patterns could easily be . . . obtained by contacting those customers directly," that information could not be deemed a trade secret

Holding that the "'loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages' because ' trade secret once lost is, of course, lost forever

Concluding that if the Japanese word "otokoyama" described a generic type of sake, it could not be trademarked in order to prevent other sake vendors from using the term to describe sake of that type

Holding knowledge of "brand strategies" and future product plans was trade secret information

Holding that loss of trade secrets was an irreparable harm that could not be measured in money because ‘a trade secret once lost is, of course, lost forever’

Holding that non-compete in employment agreement was ancillary to the sale of a business where the purpose of the sale was to obtain seller's employees and the closing documents provided that execution of the employment agreement was a necessary precondition of the sale

Finding that harm was not irreparable where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant's misappropriation would result in lost contracts with a "finite-albeit large-number of customers"

Applying Massachusetts law and finding no abrogation where non-compete clause stated that "[a]ny subsequent change or changes in the [employee's] duties, salary or compensation will not affect the validity or scope of this Agreement"