关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

拉脱维亚

LV005-j

返回

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia [2021]: SIA “Colemont FKB Latvia” v Person A, Person B, Person C, and SIA “Partner Broker”, Case No. C33670516 (SKC 15/2021)

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 3: Confidential Information and Trade Secrets

 

Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia [2021]: SIA “Colemont FKB Latvia” v Person A, Person B, Person C, and SIA “Partner Broker”, Case No. C33670516 (SKC‑15/2021)

 

Date of judgment: January 28, 2021

Issuing authority: Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia (The Senate)

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Undisclosed Information (Trade Secrets)

Plaintiff: SIA “Colemont FKB Latvia”

Defendants: Person A; Person B; Person C; SIA “Partner Broker”

Keywords: Database, Sui generis right, Trade secret misappropriation, Unfair competition, Confidentiality protection in proceedings, Reputation, Infringement, Damages, Data protection, Evidence, Balance of interests, Proportionality

 

Basic facts: The Claimant SIA “Colemont FKB Latvia”, which provides services of insurance agents and brokers, brought an action against its three former employees for the recovery of damages, claiming that the Defendants had infringed the agreements restricting competition concluded with their employer SIA “Colemont FKB Latvia” when immediately after the termination of their employment relationship, they joined the competitor company SIA “Partner Broker” and won over the Claimant’s clients.  The claim further alleged that the Defendants had unlawfully used the Claimant’s databases, violated the Claimant’s right to the protection of its trade secrets against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure and, in some cases, had not collected the insurance premiums in due time.

 

The action also includes a claim against the former employees and SIA “Partner Broker” for the joint and several recovery of non-material damages caused by the damage to the Claimant’s reputation as a result of infringement of the prohibition of unfair competition, infringement of trade secret rights, and the dissemination of information harmful to reputation.

 

Riga Regional Court (the Court of Appeal) dismissed the action.

 

Held: The Supreme Court of Latvia upheld the judgment in respect of a part of the damages (caused by uncollected insurance premiums) and a part of the non-material damages, as the appeal in cassation did not contain adequate reasoning regarding those claims.

 

However, the Supreme Court annulled the remainder of the judgment of Riga Regional Court, remanding it for a new examination, having found that Riga Regional Court misinterpreted and incorrectly applied substantive law and infringed the procedural law regarding the request for evidence, the assessment of evidence and the grounds for the judgment.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to confidential information and trade secrets: This case dealt with a number of issues concerning rights.  In particular, the Latvian caselaw clarified for the first time the ways in which databases are protected, as well as the basis of each type of protection and the criteria to be evaluated.

 

The Supreme Court explained that databases can be protected in two ways, either by copyright or by a specific type of right (sui generis).  A database may be protected by copyright if, in terms of the selection or arrangement of its materials, it is the result of creative work.  A database may be protected by a specific type of right (sui generis) if the acquisition, verification or demonstration of its contents requires a substantial qualitative or quantitative investment.  The concept of investment should be interpreted broadly, including not only financial investment but also consumption of time and energy, since the investment must refer to the acquisition, verification or demonstration of the contents of the database, but not to the acquisition of the database itself or the creation of the contents in question.  Moreover, such an investment must be substantial.

 

The Supreme Court noted that a distinction must be made between the right to protection of the contents of a database and the right to protection of a database.  This applies both to databases protected by copyright and to databases protected by the sui generis right.  Information as an intangible benefit cannot be the subject of property rights, but it may be protected by other types of rights, such as rights to protection of trade secrets.

 

The Supreme Court also found some violations of procedural law by the Court of Appeal (Riga Regional Court) regarding the request for evidence and assessment of evidence, which were caused, inter alia, by the misunderstanding of Riga Regional Court of the status of trade secrets and protection of personal data.  The Supreme Court explained that, when deciding on a party’s request for evidence, the legitimate interests of both parties (and other parties involved) must be considered by determining what right must be protected more in the particular circumstances of the case.  The principle of proportionality must also be taken into account.  In order to establish that the evidence to be disclosed includes the other party’s trade secret, the court must ascertain if the respective information complies with the characteristics of a trade secret established by Articles 2 and 3 of the Latvian Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets.

 

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Latvia, as a court of cassation, does not rule on the substance of the case, but rather provides clarification on the interpretation and application of substantive and procedural law. 

 

Relevant legislation: Rec. 7, 23, 40, Art. 1(3), 3, 4, 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; Regulation (EU) 2016/679; Art. 1(3), 5(3), 57 of the Latvian Copyright Law; Art. 18 of the Latvian Competition Law; Art. 84, 85(3), 86, 100(5) of the Latvian Labour Law; Art. 112(1) of the Latvian Civil Procedure Law; Art. 2, 3 of the Latvian Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets.