Opinion ID: 1446351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Common Law Unfair Competition (Count VII)

Text: Lastly, NCR alleges that KAL is liable for common law unfair competition because KAL has engaged in unethical business practices. Unfair competition ordinarily consists of representations by one person, for the purpose of deceiving the public, that his or her goods are those of another. It may also extend to unfair commercial practices such as malicious litigation, circulation of false rumors, or publication of statements, all designed to harm the business of another. Landskroner v. Landskroner, 154 Ohio App.3d 471, 797 N.E.2d 1002, 1017 (2003) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). [W]hen an otherwise arbitrable claim has simply been renamed or recast it will share the same factual basis as the arbitrable claim. Simon, 398 F.3d at 776. While NCR styles its seventh count against KAL as a common law unfair competition claim, the language of the Amended Complaint makes clear that NCR is merely asserting claims arising under its agreement with KAL through a common law rubric. For instance, NCR alleges, in part, that KAL disregardiedl confidentiality provisions in its own Agreement with NCR and misappropriat[ed] trade secrets and other proprietary information of NCR. These allegations relate directly to the confidentiality provisions and Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement incorporated into the 1998 Agreement, and their resolution will require a court to examine and interpret the terms of the 1998 Agreement. We therefore conclude that the claim is arbitrable.