Search for: "US Secret Service" Results 501 - 520 of 12,614
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2013, 7:24 am by James Goodman
In Angelica, the plaintiff, Angelica Textile Services, sued its former employee, Jaye Park, and his new company on causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, interference with business relations and conversion after Park, while still employed by Angelica, began working with Angelica’s customers using information from his employment at Angelica to create a laundry business to… [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 3:36 pm
The Illinois ARDC has filed a complaint charged two partners of of a self-adevertised "boutique law firm" with using a client's confidences and secrets of a former client. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 9:05 am
"Facebook is committed to user safety and security and, to that end, its Terms of Service for developers explicitly state that applications should not use adware and spyware," a statement from the company read.Read the article: CNET News.com [read post]
16 Sep 2003, 9:42 am
Today's Toledo Blade carries a story on Toledo-based US District Judge James Carr, who discussed his service on the "secret" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court yesterday with students at the University of Toledo College of Law. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 6:10 am by Kara M. Maciel
As readers of the Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog are aware, companies routinely seek to enforce their employment agreements with departing employees in order to prevent the disclosure and unauthorized use of confidential or proprietary and trade secret information by employees on behalf of a competitor. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 5:15 am by Matthew Pomy
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in four cases on Tuesday. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 2:15 pm by Robert B. Milligan and Amy Abeloff
” The proposed legislation would authorize a private civil action in federal court for the misappropriation of a trade secret that is “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 3:05 pm by Dennis Crouch
§ 1836(b) and reads: An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 7:41 am by Russell Beck
Courtney in the Southern District of New York, in which LinkedIn, Facebook, Google, and other Internet sites were used to demonstrate that the information could be easily obtained online. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 10:25 am by Lee Davis
This information was combined with sketches Wyko already obtained from a former Goodyear employee of the machines used to make the tires. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:30 am by David Markus
Salo Schapiro contend the secret practice was not the action of “just one rogue agent or prosecutor. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 2:13 am by Lisa Law View
One of the laws that NLRA posters have is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Acts that must be made use of by employers. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 7:25 pm
According to the government, "the trade secret information, marked confidential on each page, included data concerning product costs and materials that IBM used to compete in the marketplace. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 2:48 pm by Dennis Crouch
Similarly, the DNC argues that those files also contain trade secret material. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 8:28 am by James P. Flynn
Chapter 18, at Article 18.78, addresses trade secret protections, and requires each member country to assure that “persons have the legal means to prevent trade secrets lawfully in their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others (including state-owned enterprises) without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:43 pm
 Based on the 1996 Act, the Supreme Court found that Victoria’s Secret must show that actual harm took place against Victoria’s Secret and that such harm lessened the capacity of the Victoria’s Secret mark to identify and distinguish goods or services sold in Victoria’s Secret stores. [read post]