Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Protection of Trade Secrets

Important Case Laws on Trade Secrets for CS Professional

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Trade secret case laws show how courts protect confidential information without a dedicated statute. Saltman Engineering v Campbell laid down the basic breach of confidence principle, and Coco v A.N. Clark set the three-element test. In India, Burlington protected a compiled list mainly through copyright, and American Express v Priya Puri limited employer claims. Cite the case, facts and principle.

Understand Important Case Laws on Trade Secrets

India has no separate trade secret statute. Courts protect confidential information through the law of contract, equity (breach of confidence), and common law principles. Remedies are mainly injunctions and damages. So in the exam, case laws are your main authority.

The starting point is the English law of breach of confidence. In Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd v Campbell Engineering Co. Ltd (1948), the Court of Appeal held that a person who receives confidential information (here, tool drawings made for a client) must not use it for a purpose other than the one for which it was given. The duty arises from the confidential relationship, even without a written contract. The case set out the basic principle of breach of confidence and the requirement that the information be truly confidential. Lord Greene's wording is the one usually quoted: the information must not be public property or public knowledge.

The three-element test comes from a later English case, Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969), which built on Saltman. The claimant must show (1) that the information has the necessary quality of confidence, (2) that it was received in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and (3) that it was used or disclosed without authority, usually to the owner's detriment.

Indian courts follow this approach. In Burlington Home Shopping Pvt Ltd v Rajnish Chibber (Delhi High Court, 1995), the plaintiff ran a home-shopping business. A former employee copied its mailing list of customers. The court primarily protected the compiled mailing list as a copyright-protected compilation, the result of skill, labour and capital. Confidentiality was a supporting ground. The use of the list was restrained.

In American Express Bank Ltd v Priya Puri (Delhi High Court, 2006), an employee moved to a rival. The court held that customer data and information an employee carries in memory or in general skill is not automatically a trade secret. An employer cannot stop a former employee from earning a living using general knowledge and experience. The court refused the injunction because specific confidential information was not proved to have been taken or misused.

Separately, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes agreements in restraint of trade void, so a restraint on working after employment is generally not enforceable. This is a statutory point. It is not the ratio of American Express.

Read together, the cases give a clear picture: confidentiality needs a duty (contract or relationship), information that is truly secret, and misuse. A compiled database may also attract copyright. General skill and public information are not protected.

Key rules to remember

Elements of breach of confidence: Confidential quality of information + obligation of confidence + unauthorised use or disclosure (often with detriment to the owner); Three-element test from Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1969), which built on Saltman Engineering v Campbell. Indian courts follow it. Use it as the test in any fact-based question.
Saltman principle: Information given in confidence must be used only for the purpose for which it was given; it must not be public property or public knowledge; Basic principle of breach of confidence. The duty can arise without a written contract, from the relationship itself.
Burlington principle: Compiled customer list built with skill, labour and capital = protected mainly as a copyright compilation, with confidentiality as a supporting ground; copying it by a departing employee can be restrained; Delhi High Court, 1995, Burlington Home Shopping v Rajnish Chibber.
American Express principle: General knowledge, skill and experience of an employee ≠ trade secret; injunction needs proof that specific confidential information was taken or misused; Delhi High Court, 2006. Separately, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 voids agreements in restraint of trade, which affects post-employment restraints.

How to solve Important Case Laws on Trade Secrets questions

Most questions give a short fact pattern or ask you to state a case. Use this order so you show provision, analysis and conclusion.

1Identify the issue: has confidential information been misused, and by whom (employee, licensee, business partner, rival)?
2State the legal basis: India has no specific trade secret statute, so protection comes from contract, equity and common law.
3Name the relevant case and give its facts in one or two lines.
4State the principle (holding) of that case in plain words.
5Apply it to the given facts: was the information secret, was there a duty of confidence, was there misuse?
6Check the limits: general skill and public information, and the effect of Section 27 of the Contract Act on post-employment restraints.
7Conclude with the likely remedy: injunction, damages or account of profits, and add a drafting or compliance point such as an NDA.

Quickest way: Case, Principle, Apply, Remedy

When to use it: Use when time is short or the question asks you to discuss or summarise leading cases.

Write the case name with court and year.
Write the facts in one line.
Write the principle in one line.
Add one line applying it to the question.
Close with the remedy or a practical tip such as an NDA.

Common mistakes in Important Case Laws on Trade Secrets

Saying India has a trade secret Act.
Students assume every IP right has a statute, like patents or trademarks.
Fix: State clearly that protection comes from contract, equity and common law, and that courts have developed the principles through cases.
Mixing up the facts of Burlington and American Express.
Both are Delhi High Court cases involving former employees and customer information.
Fix: Remember: Burlington = copied customer mailing list, protected. American Express = employee's general knowledge and data, protection not granted without proof of specific misuse.
Treating Saltman as an Indian case.
It is quoted so often in Indian judgments.
Fix: Label it as an English Court of Appeal decision (1948) whose principle Indian courts follow.
Claiming any information an employee knows is protected.
Students focus on the employer's interest and forget the employee's right to work.
Fix: Distinguish confidential information from general skill and experience, and mention Section 27 of the Contract Act.
Listing cases without applying them.
Students memorise names but skip analysis, while papers are case-based.
Fix: After each principle, add a line linking it to the facts and reaching a conclusion.
Quoting exact dates or details you are unsure of.
Trying to look precise.
Fix: Give the case name, court, principle and the year only if you are sure. Correct principle earns more than a doubtful detail.

Worked examples

Example 1

Rohan, a sales manager at Kiran Retail Pvt Ltd in Mumbai, resigns and joins a rival. Before leaving he copies the company's customer database, built over ten years, and uses it to solicit customers. Kiran Retail wants to stop him. Advise.

Show the solution

Issue: misuse of a compiled customer database by a former employee.
Basis: no specific trade secret statute in India, so remedy lies in copyright (for the compiled database), breach of confidence and contract.
Case: in Burlington Home Shopping v Rajnish Chibber (Delhi High Court, 1995), a former employee copied a customer mailing list. The court primarily protected the compiled list as a copyright-protected compilation, the product of skill, labour and capital, with confidentiality as a supporting ground, and restrained its use.
Principle from Saltman Engineering v Campbell: information received in confidence cannot be used for another purpose. Coco v A.N. Clark supplies the three elements: confidential quality, obligation of confidence and unauthorised use.
Application: Rohan copied the database itself, so this is specific data taken, not general experience. The ten-year compilation shows skill and labour, and he used it without authority. The facts match Burlington more than American Express.
Conclusion: Kiran Retail can seek an injunction and damages. Practically, it should have employment contracts with confidentiality clauses and restricted access to the database.

Answer: Kiran Retail is likely to obtain an injunction restraining Rohan from using the copied database, plus damages, relying mainly on copyright in the compilation as in Burlington, supported by breach of confidence under the Saltman and Coco principles.

Example 2

Meera leaves Suresh Bank Ltd for a competitor. Suresh Bank alleges she will use her knowledge of clients and banking products and wants to stop her working there. She took no documents. Discuss with reference to case law.

Show the solution

Issue: can an employer bar a former employee from using what she knows?
Case: in American Express Bank v Priya Puri (Delhi High Court, 2006), the court held that general knowledge, skill and experience gained in employment are not trade secrets. It refused the injunction because specific confidential information was not shown to have been misused.
Separately, Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes agreements in restraint of trade void, so a bar on working for a competitor after employment is generally not enforceable.
Application: Meera took no documents and there is no evidence of specific misuse. Her knowledge is largely general experience.
Distinguish Burlington: there a specific list was copied. Here it was not.
Conclusion: an injunction stopping her from working is unlikely. The bank could still act if it later proves she misused specific confidential data.

Answer: Suresh Bank is unlikely to stop Meera from working. General knowledge is not a protectable trade secret under American Express v Priya Puri, and Section 27 of the Contract Act separately makes a post-employment restraint generally unenforceable. The bank may act only if specific misuse is proved.

Exam tips

Learn the cases as a set: Saltman gives the basic principle, Coco v A.N. Clark gives the three-element test, Burlington protects a compiled database mainly through copyright, and American Express sets the limit for employee knowledge.
Always say that India has no separate trade secret law and that courts rely on contract, equity and common law.
In case-based questions, compare the facts with each case before concluding.
Add a practical point such as an NDA, confidentiality clause or access control; it shows drafting awareness.
Since the elective is open book, mark the case names and principles in your notes for quick reference, but still practise writing the application.

Practice questions from Protection of Trade Secrets

Important Case Laws on Trade Secrets: frequently asked questions

What is the Saltman Engineering v Campbell case about?

It is an English Court of Appeal decision of 1948 on breach of confidence. The court held that a person given confidential information, such as drawings, must not use it for a purpose other than the one it was given for. The case set out the basic principle and the need for the information to be confidential. Indian courts follow this principle.

What did American Express Bank v Priya Puri decide?

The Delhi High Court held that an employee's general knowledge, skill and experience cannot be treated as the employer's trade secret. It refused the injunction because specific confidential information was not proved to be misused. Section 27 of the Contract Act, which voids agreements in restraint of trade, is a separate point and not the ratio of the case.

Why is Burlington Home Shopping v Rajnish Chibber important?

It shows the Delhi High Court protecting a compiled customer mailing list that a former employee copied. The court mainly treated the list as a copyright-protected compilation, the result of skill, labour and capital, with confidentiality as a supporting ground. The use of the list was restrained.

Is there an Indian statute on trade secrets?

No. Trade secrets are protected through contract law, the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence and common law principles. That is why case laws matter so much for this topic.