The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1928-01-13

prepared the plaintiffs remedy and
put INTO it all the ingredients, except
'nat In his presence another officer
OF the corporation added one ingredi-
ent: How this ingredient was added
weiss saw and observed; what it was
ne well knew; the quantity used he
saw and observed, and he had in his
possession all the formulas used, and
had examined and compared the orig
maj formula with the working fOrmu-
la. He knew the contents of all for
mulas and the exact quantities used
or all ingredients. Any attempted de-
NAL by him of such facts can have
no force in the face of the undisputed
evidence.
z. In paragraph No. 8 the court
found that the allegation, that this
formula or process is a secret or
trade secret belonging to the plain
TIT, is not sustained by the evidence.
Inc undlsputed facts are to the con-
trary. That the formulas and process
were not absolutely secret is not a de-
tense in this action. They were trade
secrets so far as Weiss and the cor
pOratlOn controlled and owned by him
are concerned. Weiss, having obtain
ed knowledge of the formulas and
process because of his confidential
relation to plaintiff as its president
and directOr, cannot avoid RESPONSE
Dlllty on the ground that the fOrmu-
las and process were not wholly Sc
cret. Vulcan DEFINING Co. v. Ameri-
can Can Co., 81 n. J. Eq. 243. 12 L.
X. A. On. So 102. In that case if is
held that one obtaining knowledge of
a process by reason of relations of
confidence, or through his employ
ment, will not be permitted to after
wards use such process for himself or
TO disclose it to others, without the
consent of the party from whom he
obtains 1T, although the process is not
wholly secret, but only qualifiedly so,
and that such restriction applies as
well to others, who, with knowledge
OF the facts, obtain the information
from such employee or person.
The rule as to qualified or partial
secrecy is recognized by this court in
the case of Chamber of Commerce v.
Wells, 100 Mimi. 2O5. Ill N. w. 157.
although there applied to market
quotations and not strictly to trade
secrets.
The formulas and process used by
the plaintiff were at least qualifiedIy
secret and should have been so held.
3. In paragraph No. g, the court
found that there was no evidence Of
tered as to the formula used by de-
PENDANT corporation in preparing the
remedy ,Ra-aid, nor as-tO the ingredi-
ents, process or method of compound
ing same, and that the allegation that
corporation is using the same or SINH
lar formula or process as that used
Dy plaintiff is not sustained by the
evidence. The ingredients of defend
ants remedy are printed on the la
Dels introduced in evidence and coin
eide with the ingredients of plaintiffs
remedy. The one ingredient that de-
PENDANT Weiss pleads ignorance of is
advertised as being an important eIe-
ment In defendants remedy and he
mad copy of plaintiffs working for
mula and knowledge of the quantity
OF each ingredient used and of the
exact manner and method of CON-
pounding the remedy. He testified
That, after he left the plaintiff COM
pany, he went right on manufactur-
ing the same sort of radium (remedv)
as ever. Weiss does not claim to
have obtained any formula or process.
or any knowledge of the compound
ing OF any remedy from any other
source than from his connection with
plaintiff. There can be no other
reasonable conclusion or finding of
TACT than that defendants remedy
Na,a!d contains the same ingredients
ana Is made from the same formula
ana by the same process as plain
iii remedy, and the ingredients are
clearly shown. The evidence requires
such a finding.
f. In paragraph No. 10, the court
round, In substance, that the trade
practices of defendant corporation did
not constitute any unfair, unlawful
or unjust encrOachment or infringe
ment upon plaintiffs rights and did
not entitle plaintiff to any relief
ms finding is in the nature of y
conclusion, based on findings of fact
herenbefOre held not sustained by any
evidence, hence must fall with them.
!, No fixed rule can perhaps be laid
as W WIdL unIaIF
It has been said that
Unfair competition consists Gin the
stimulation by one person, for the
purpose of deceiving the public. of
the name, symbols, or devices employ
ed by business rival, or the subsfi.
tuition of the goods or wares of one
person for those of another, thus
falsely inducing the purchase of his
wares and thereby obtaining for him
self the benefits properly belonging
to his competitor" rs r. C. L. S75
An exclusive right to use trade
name is not necessary in order to
entitle the use to restrain another
from unfair use or imitation thereof
ashburn F. M. Co. v.
Eagle, Sc Fed. sos. 1t is not import.
ant in this case whether the wrong
here complained of be considered un.
fair competition or not. 1t was a
breach of confidence and wrongful
Misrepresentation of qualifiedly secret
formulas and process by the defend
ant Weiss, and the same liability
would follow as in case of unfair
S. Complaint is made of the sew