You are on page 1of 1

The theme of the story highlighted that the Seventh Circuit US court sanctioned

an injunction against Redmond joining Snapple using the principles of inevitable


disclosure and permanent injunction. As per the doctrine of inevitable disclosure,
Redmonds intimate knowledge of PepsiCos pricing, marketing and distribution
plans which were the PepsiCos trade secrets would get revealed to Snapple in
order to succeed in his new job by carrying out responsibilities of similar nature.
This would lead to threatened misappropriation of trade secrets under the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 1996. The iR3 rule, that is irreparable harm in the
forms of risk, role and resource for the organization was applied. Also, the
permanent injunction granted after the trial refers to the restraint against the
employee from joining the competitor for the contract period and not for lifetime. It is different from the other story of EVP through Blank Cheque case in
India, where "inevitable disclosure" leads to anticipatory breach and are nonenforceable in India. The Delhi High Court, thus gave the verdict against Pepsi
stating that injunction would create a situation such as "Once a Pepsi employee,
always a Pepsi employee". This would create bonded labor conditions violate the
Article 27 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.