Opinion ID: 2376652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Colteryahn Dairy, Inc. v. Schneider Dairy, 415 Pa. 276, 280, 203 A.2d 469, 471:

Text: Generally, in the absence of an express contract to the contrary, solicitation of a former employer's customers, on behalf of another in competition with his former employer, will not be enjoined. This rule has been recognized by numerous text writers and courts. However, even in the absence of such an express agreement, an employer is entitled to equitable protection against the competitive use of confidential and secret information obtained as a result of the trust and confidence of previous employment   . See also Vendo Co. v. Long, 213 Ga. 774, 102 S.E.2d 173; Renpak, Inc. v. Oppenheimer, Fla.App., 104 So.2d 642. It would appear then that, Colonial Laundries involving as it did, a customer list that had been entrusted to the former employees in confidence and within the exception to the general rule referred to above, the trial justice in the instant case did not err in refusing to grant relief by way of injunction to Callahan if the list under consideration was not acquired by Anthony in confidence. The question then is whether the trial justice was correct in finding that the information concerning customer lists which Callahan furnished Anthony was not within the exception to the general rule referred to above. In our opinion, the list from which Anthony acquired information of Callahan's customers was properly found to be not confidential and, therefore, differs from the list to which this court extended protection in Colonial Laundries. We think the distinction between these situations is made abundantly clear in Town & Country House & Home Service, Inc. v. Newbery, 3 N.Y.2d 554, 147 N.E.2d 724. There the court, considering whether injunctive relief should be afforded such a list where prior employees had solicited some 25 customers of the plaintiff, who operated a house-cleaning service, said, 3 N.Y.2d at 558, 170 N.Y.S.2d at 331, 147 N.E.2d at 726:    The only trade secret which could be involved in this business is plaintiff's list of customers. Concerning that, even where a solicitor of business does not operate fraudulently under the banner of his former employer, he still may not solicit the latter's customers who are not openly engaged in business in advertised locations or whose availability as patrons cannot readily be ascertained but `whose trade and patronage have been secured by years of business effort and advertising, and the expenditure of time and money, constituting a part of the good-will of a business which enterprise and foresight have built up'   . In short, it is our opinion that Colonial Laundries stands for the proposition that where information concerning a list of customers is confidential in nature and, therefore, partakes of the character of a trade secret, a former employer is entitled to equitable relief to protect that information against use by a former employee after the termination of his employment. Obviously such lists of customers who are available to take the particular service that is offered and who are not classified as likely customers in any public directory or discoverable by any public display of their willingness to purchase such goods or services can be assembled only by an expenditure of time, effort, and money. Denawetz v. Milch, 407 Pa. 115, 178 A.2d 701; Town and Country House and Homes Service, Inc. v. Evans, 150 Conn. 314, 189 A.2d 390; American Alloy Steel Corp. v. Ross, 149 Cal.App.2d 215, 308 P.2d 494. However, as the court said in Town and Country House and Homes Service, Inc. v. Evans, supra, 150 Conn. at 320, 189 A.2d 394: On the other hand, where the identity of the customers is readily ascertainable through ordinary business channels or through classified business or trade directories, the courts refuse to accord to the list the protection of a trade secret. In our opinion, the list under consideration here is one of customers whose identity was readily ascertainable and not confidential and the trial justice did not err in denying injunctive relief. The appeal of the plaintiff is denied and dismissed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.