Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “[r]ecognized standards of business ethics and business customs and practices are pertinent”). FMS specifically complains that Hawkeye used “the FMS customer list and the FMS licensed agents to compete directly for the FMS book of business.” There is no evidence that Hawkeye sought a customer list in the possession of FMS. Rather, Hawkeye merely compiled such a list from its own records; after all, FMS’s clients were originally bank customers and were referred to FMS by the Hawkeye banks. There is nothing improper about Hawkeye using information in its own files for purposes of soliciting business. See Burke, 474 N.W.2d at 113 (citing Ballagh v. Polk-Warren Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 257 Iowa 1334, 1343, 136 N.W.2d 496, 501 (1965)); cf. Lemmon v. Hendrickson, 559 N.W.2d 278, 280-81 (Iowa 1997) (<HOLDING>). With respect to Hawkeye’s use of “FMS 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a customer list may be protectable as a trade secret if it is secret and the court examines and determines if it is protectable based on three factors 1 what steps if any an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list 2 whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential and 3 whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable (B) holding that arbitration clause which was included with product mailed to customer and with proviso that customer could return product within 30 days was binding on customer who did not return computer (C) holding former employee could properly use recollection of customer information where he did not otherwise misappropriate an actual customer list (D) holding that the plaintiffs customer list was not a trade secret in part because there was no evidence that by the nature of the plaintiffs business extraordinary effort was involved in compiling the customer list (E) holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs customer list was not a trade secret in part because there was no evidence that by the nature of the plaintiffs business extraordinary effort was involved in compiling the customer list