Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Appearance regulation (1)
- BarillaAmerica Inc. v. Wright (1)
- Branded service (1)
- Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. v. Lockhart (1)
- DoubleClick Inc. v. Henderson (1)
-
- Economic Espionage Act (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Freedom to fire (1)
- Freedom to leave (1)
- General knowledge (1)
- Hooters (1)
- IP defense (1)
- Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (1)
- Intellectual property (1)
- Lawler Mfg. Co. v. Bradley Corp. (1)
- Marietta Corp. v Fairhurst (1)
- Merck & Co. v. Lyon (1)
- Noncompetition agreements (1)
- Nondisclosure agreements (1)
- PepsiCo Inc. v. Redmond (1)
- Rencor Controls Inc. v. Stinson (1)
- Restatement of Unfair Competition (1)
- Specific knowledge (1)
- Threatened misappropriation (1)
- Trade secrets (1)
- Trademark (1)
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
Intellectual Property And Employee Selection, Elizabeth A. Rowe
Intellectual Property And Employee Selection, Elizabeth A. Rowe
UF Law Faculty Publications
In today’s marketplace, companies from Disney to Hooters are increasingly integrating their image into the service that they provide. This has come to be known as “branded service.” The human wearing the trade dress merges with the brand image. When a company chooses this strategy to differentiate itself from its competitors in the marketplace, it will often incorporate some intellectual property, and the result then necessarily influences hiring decisions. If a business decides not to hire a prospective employee because she does not fit the company’s image, and that decision is challenged under the antidiscrimination laws, to what extent should …
When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness And The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, Elizabeth A. Rowe
When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness And The Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, Elizabeth A. Rowe
UF Law Faculty Publications
Critics of the inevitable disclosure doctrine decry the inconsistency with which courts rule on these cases, and the difficulty in predicting case outcomes. They contend that courts are left to "grapple with a decidedly ... nebulous standard of 'inevitability."' Further, they claim the doctrine undermines the employee's fundamental right to move freely and pursue his or her livelihood.
Ultimately, both the problem and solution here are about fairness: fairness in the employer-employee relationship, fairness in the application of the law, and fairness in providing protection from unfair competition between competing employers. The crux of the opposition to the doctrine, in …