Vestergaard Frandsen SA ( MVf3 APS) & Ors v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors

Vestergaard Frandsen SA ( MVf3 APS) & Ors v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors

The defendants misused confidential information from the Fence database in developing the initial NetProtect product, justifying an injunction against that version. Mrs Sig was not liable for breach of confidence as she had no access to or knowledge of the confidential information, and strict liability should not be implied. Injunctions against later versions (WHOPES I and II) were disproportionate due to subsequent independent development and the passage of time. New evidence regarding LDPE/HDPE ratios did not undermine the original findings.

Parties
Claimant: Vestergaard Frandsen S/A (now called MVF3 APS); Claimant: Vestergaard Frandsen SA; Claimant: Disease Control Textiles SA; Defendant: Bestnet Europe Ltd; Defendant: 3T Europe Ltd; Defendant: Intection Ltd; Defendant: Intelligent Insect Control Ltd; Defendant: Torben Holm Larsen; Defendant: Trine Angeline Sig
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property)
Outcome
Appeal of Mrs Sig allowed; all other appeals and cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Confidential Information, Trade Secrets, Injunctions, Implied Contractual Terms, Employee Duties, Remedies for Breach of Confidence
Intellectual Property Employment Law Contract Law Breach of Confidence Misuse of Confidential Information Trade Secrets Injunctions Implied Contractual Terms +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vestergaard Frandsen S/A (now called MVF3 APS)

Claimant

Vestergaard Frandsen SA

Claimant

Disease Control Textiles SA

Claimant

Bestnet Europe Ltd

Defendant

3T Europe Ltd

Defendant

Intection Ltd

Defendant

Intelligent Insect Control Ltd

Defendant

Torben Holm Larsen

Defendant

Trine Angeline Sig

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants misused confidential information (the Fence database) in developing NetProtect
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Sig was liable for breach of confidence despite lack of knowledge or access to confidential information
  3. 3 Whether injunctions should be granted for later versions of the product (WHOPES I and II)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants misused confidential information from the Fence database in developing the initial NetProtect product, justifying an injunction against that version. Mrs Sig was not liable for breach of confidence as she had no access to or knowledge of the confidential information, and strict liability should not be implied. Injunctions against later versions (WHOPES I and II) were disproportionate due to subsequent independent development and the passage of time. New evidence regarding LDPE/HDPE ratios did not undermine the original findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Mrs Sig allowed; all other appeals and cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Injunction against the initial NetProtect product upheld.
  • No injunction granted against WHOPES I and II products.