For more than 20 years, Texas personal injury lawyer Jim Adler has called himself The Texas Hammer® and more recently El Martillo Tejano®.  After spending millions in television, print, and billboard advertising, Jim Adler with his iconic sledgehammer has become one of the most recognizable personal injury attorneys in Texas. Adler also uses these trademarks in internet advertisements. He purchases Google “keyword ads” using the phrases JIM ADLER, THE HAMMER, TEXAS HAMMER, and EL MARTILLO as search terms. When a consumer performs a Google search using any of these trademarks as a search t ..read more

In Jones v. Frisco Fertility Center, PLLC, No. 05-21-00008-CV, 2022 WL 17248837 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 28, 2022, pet. filed), the Dallas Court of Appeals addressed whether plaintiff Frisco Fertility Center’s (FFC) request for an injunction against its former employee Dr. Jones qualified as a legal action under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Specifically, the court of appeals addressed the meaning of the phrase “legal action” under the TCPA and whether a request for injunctive relief can serve as a separate legal action under the TCPA when the request is only a component of the re ..read more

[To highlight B&E’s trademark practice, the Fort Worth Business & Employment Law Reporter is starting a new feature highlighting some of the trademark decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.]  Recently, In re Architectural Mailboxes, LLC, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refused registration of applicant’s BILT mark for “non-metal mailboxes, excluding office products,” determining that the mark was likely to cause confusion with another trademark owner’s previously registered BUILT TO INSPIRE mark for “office furniture, namely, lecterns; table dividers; non-m ..read more

The case of AMS Sensors USA Inc. v. Renesas Elec. Am. Inc., Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-00451, 2022 WL 2918893 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2022) considered whether a breach of confidential information agreement could be based products that did not incorporate the plaintiff’s trade secret into the products design. Ultimately, the court concluded that “use” of a trade secret was not limited to directly implementing a trade secret into a product.  Rather, use included “any exploitation of the trade secret that is likely to result in [the] [p]laintiff’s injury or [d]efendant’s enrichment.”  Additio ..read more

The case of Vest Safety Medical Services, LLC v. Arbor Environmental, LLC, No. 4:20-CV-0812, 2022 WL 2812195 (S.D. Tex. June 17, 2022) dealt with two issues involving trade secrets.  The first issue considered whether the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) preempted Vest’s civil conspiracy claim.  Ultimately, the court concluded that TUTSA did preempt Vest’s civil conspiracy claim.  In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the fact that this claim did not rely on facts that were distinct from Vest’s TUTSA Claim.  In the second issue, the court considered whethe ..read more

The case of EthosEnergy Field Services, LLC v. Axis Mechanical Group, Inc., H-21-3954, 2022 WL 2707734 (S.D. Tex. June 10, 2022) considered whether Ethos pled with sufficient detail its Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) claims.  Additionally, the court considered whether TUTSA preempted Ethos’s unfair competition by misappropriation claim. Ultimately, the court determined that Ethos sufficiently pled its DTSA and TUTSA claims.  However, the court also determined that TUTSA preempted Ethos’s unfair competition by misappropriation claim.&n ..read more

For years, it was not uncommon for misappropriation of trade secrets claims to be accompanied by a variety of other common law causes of action such as breach of fiduciary, fraud, and conspiracy. The Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), however, states that it “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.” Generally, this provision means that all common law or non-contractual claims based on “the alleged improper taking of trade secret and confidential business information” are preempted. Some cases ..read more

The case of Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. v. Jason Oil & Gas Equipment, LLC, No. H-20-3768, 2022 WL 1103078 (S.D. Tex. April 13, 2022) considered whether the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) preempted Forum Energy’s claims for unfair competition, conspiracy, and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations.  Ultimately, the court determined that only Forum Energy’s tortious interference with prospective business relations was preempted.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the underlying facts of Forum Energy’s tortious interference wit ..read more

The case of Bureau Veritas Commodities and Trade, Inc. v. Cotecna Inspection SA, No. 4:21-CV-00622, 2022 WL 912781 (S.D. Tex. 2022) dealt with the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA).  Ultimately, the Southern District of Texas determined that the Plaintiff successfully plead a claim under DTSA and TUTSA.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Plaintiff was not required to plead detailed descriptions of its trade secret in a public complaint, es ..read more

As most commercial litigators know, Texas law does not make it easy to seal court records with trade secrets. A bill to change that was filed last month. House Bill 5299 proposes amendments to the Texas Uniform Trade Secret Act (TUTSA). Under the proposed legislation, a party seeking to seal a document containing an alleged trade secret could file an affidavit generally describing the trade secret, and the document will be temporarily and then permanently filed under seal. (The procedure varies depending on whether the document contains the party’s own trade secret or another party’s trade sec ..read more