Seager v Copydex Ltd
A company that unconsciously used confidential information given to it in negotiations was liable for breach of confidence, and the damages are the market value of the information.
Facts
Mr Seager invented a carpet grip, and had discussions with Copydex about marketing it. During the discussions, he told them about an alternative design of grip. The discussions broke down. Copydex then produced its own carpet grip, which was based on Mr Seager's alternative design, and called it Invisigrip, the name Mr Seager had suggested. Copydex honestly believed that it had invented the grip itself. Mr Seager sued for breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Copydex was liable. Lord Denning MR said that the law on this subject depends on the broad principle of equity that he who has received information in confidence shall not take unfair advantage of it, and that he must not make use of it to the prejudice of him who gave it without obtaining his consent. Copydex had used the information unconsciously, which was still a breach of confidence. The damages should be assessed on the basis of the market value of the information, which would depend on whether it was ordinary information or something special, like an invention.
Related cases on breach of confidence and trade secrets
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2013] EWCA Civ 780, [2013] RPC 36
- Fraser v Thames Television Ltd [1984] QB 44
- HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1776, [2008] Ch 57
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
