This could be the case where the former employer had a virtual monopoly and the public interest would be served by multiple retailers or service providers. Enforcement Whether it be a misappropriation of a customer list or trade secret, or a violation of a non-compete agreement, one prerequisite for enforcement is prompt action. By initiating an appropriate enforcement action promptly, the retailer will let the former employee know that the complained-of conduct will not be tolerated, and he or she must be prepared to spend good money to defend their action in court. This alone may be sufficient to discourage improper competition. Also, by moving quickly to a resolution of the problem, the retailer is acting to limit the period during which competition may damage the business, and may be less likely to have enforcement thwarted because an agreement is too long in duration.
Enforcement usually pursues either of two options, injunctive relief or damages, or sometimes both.
Injunctive relief seeks to stop the former employee from competing with the retailer or using improperly obtained information. To succeed, a retailer will have to show a clear right to the requested relief. Finally, to obtain injunction relief, the retailer will likely have to prove that the complained-of action will substantially injure the retailer's economic interests. An alternative to seeking injunctive relief is to sue for economic damages. In the case of trade secrets, the retailer may request reimbursement for the actual loss of profits attributable to the complained-of acts.