Editing Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|subject=Intellectual Property*Trade Secret | |subject=Intellectual Property*Trade Secret | ||
|case_treatment=No | |||
|facts=Chicago Lock Co. manufactured Ace tubular locks. Each lock has a serial number which corresponds to that lock’s key code. Fanburg, a locksmith, compiled a list of corresponding key codes and serial numbers. He compiled this list from picking customers’ locks and grinding keys for them. He published an advertisement in a locksmith trade magazine requesting that other locksmiths submit their lists of lock serial numbers and corresponding key codes in exchange for a copy of a compilation book with all known key codes and corresponding serial numbers. Chicago Lock Co. filed suit to enjoin publication of compilation, citing trade secrets. | |facts=Chicago Lock Co. manufactured Ace tubular locks. Each lock has a serial number which corresponds to that lock’s key code. Fanburg, a locksmith, compiled a list of corresponding key codes and serial numbers. He compiled this list from picking customers’ locks and grinding keys for them. He published an advertisement in a locksmith trade magazine requesting that other locksmiths submit their lists of lock serial numbers and corresponding key codes in exchange for a copy of a compilation book with all known key codes and corresponding serial numbers. Chicago Lock Co. filed suit to enjoin publication of compilation, citing trade secrets. | ||
|procedural_history=Plaintiff filed suit for trade secret protection, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, saying that Defendant used improper means to acquire Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The other claims were dismissed. | |procedural_history=Plaintiff filed suit for trade secret protection, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, saying that Defendant used improper means to acquire Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The other claims were dismissed. | ||
