Appellate decision in Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982)
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports
CHICAGO LOCK CO. v. FANBERG, 676 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1982)
CHICAGO LOCK CO., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MORRIS v.
FANBERG
AND VICTOR FANBERG, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A A-ADVANCED LOCKSMITH,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 80-5000.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted August 3, 1981.
Decided May 6, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 14, 1982.
Neil F. Martin, San Diego, Cal., for Chicago Lock.
Bruno J. Verbeck, San Diego, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
H. Chester Horn, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenor.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.
Before ELY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM,[fn*]
District Judge.
[fn*] The Honorable Robert F. Peckham, Chief Judge, Northern
District of California, sitting by designation.
ELY, Circuit Judge:
The Chicago Lock Company ("the Company"), a manufacturer of
"tubular" locks, brought suit against Morris and Victor Fanberg,
locksmiths and publishers of specialized trade books, to enjoin
the unauthorized dissemination of key codes for the Company's
"Ace" line of tubular locks. The District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of the Fanbergs as to the Company's federal
claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition, but held
trial on the common law claim of unfair competition under former
Cal.Civ. Code § 3369.[fn1]
The court concluded that the key codes for the Company's
tubular locks were improperly acquired trade secrets and enjoined
distribution of the Fanbergs' compilation of those codes. For the
reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the District Court
and order that judgment be entered in favor of the Fanbergs.
THE FACTS
Since 1933 the Chicago Lock Company, a manufacturer of various
types of locks, has sold a tubular lock, marketed under the
registered trademark "Ace," which provides greater security than
other lock designs. Tubular Ace locks, millions of which have
been sold, are frequently used on vending and bill changing
machines and in other maximum security uses, such as burglar
alarms. The distinctive feature of Ace locks (and the feature
that apparently makes the locks attractive to institutional and
large-scale commercial purchasers) is the secrecy and difficulty
SNIPPETS:
Appellate decision in Chicago Lock Co. v. Fanberg,
United States Court of Appeals,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
Before ELY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM,District Judge.
The Honorable Robert F. Peckham, Chief Judge, Northern District of California, sitting by
The Chicago Lock Company, a manufacturer of "tubular" locks, brought suit against Morris and
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fanbergs as to the Company's
Code § 3369.The court concluded that the key codes for the Company's tubular locks were
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the District Court and order that
The District Court found that the company "has a fixed policy that it will only sell a
Excerpt of Record at 89.
Realizing that no compilation had been made of tubular lock key codes, in 1975 Fanberg
A number of locksmiths complied, and in late 1976 Fanberg and his father began to sell a
Nor did the individual locksmiths seek authorization from the Company or their customers
Appellants argue that the District Court erroneously concluded that they are liable under
We think it clear that the District Court based its decision on a theory of improper
"It is well recognized that a trade secret does not offer protection against discovery by
The concept of "improper means," as embodied in the Restatement, and as expressed by the
The court's former conclusion is sound enough: in their fiduciary relationship with lock
|
