Se trata de la sentencia de 17 de setiembre de 2018 en los autos “Navigators Logistics Ltd v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors”, dictada por el Magistrado Dr Endlaw, de la HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
Hace referencia a una situación que tiene lugar en general en la práctica empresarial, en todo el mundo: la incorporación de cláusula de no competencia y de confidencialidad en los contratos de trabajo, frente al retiro (sea voluntario o despido) del trabajador y su intención de aprovechar para sí la lista de clientes a la que tuvo acceso en su puesto laboral. También sobre la protección a través de derechos de autor de la lista de clientes.
Se trata de unos trabajadores de la empresa Navigators Logistics Ltd, que al dejar de pertenecer a la plantilla de la empresa comenzaron a desarrollar actividades laborales utilizando la lista de clientes con la cual se habían familiarizado durante su previo desempeño en relación laboral.
El tratamiento del magistrado Endlaw se divide en la consideraciónde dos temas.
En primer lugar, se presenta un análisis sobre la base del derecho de autor y la posibilidad planteada por el demandante de impedir de dicha forma la explotación de la lista de clientes por quien no es su titular. Al respecto se sostiene que no habría propiamente derecho de autor en ese tipo de creación, no sería una obra original, en la consideración del magistrado. Cita jurisprudencia precedente al respecto.
Expresa, como conclusión en la sentencia: “34. Section 3 of the Copyright Act defines ‘publication’ as, making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it has published the said list, for clause (i) of Section 13(2) to apply. For clause (ii) of Section 13(2) to apply, the author of the list has to be citizen, of India or domiciled in India. The plaintiff claims ownership of copyright under Section 17 of the Act, presumably under clause (c) thereof. However, the plaintiff has not disclosed the name of the author, who was employed with the plaintiff. The plaintiff, which is a company, cannot be the author. This Court in Rupendra Kashyap Vs. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. 1994 (28) DRJ 286 held, in the context of question papers for an examination, that the author of the examination paper is a person who has compiled the questions; the person who does this compiling, is a natural person, a human being, and not an artificial person; Central Board of Secondary Education is not a natural person—it would be entitled to claim copyright in the examination papers only if it establishes and proves that it has engaged persons specifically for purposes of preparation of compilation, known as question papers, with a contract that copyright therein will vest in Central Board of Secondary Education. I also, in Tech Plus Media Private Ltd. supra have held that a juristic person is incapable of being the author of any literary work in which a copyright may exist, though may be owner of copyright. The plaintiff has not disclosed the identity of author. The plaintiff does not claim any confidentiality about such identity. It was essential for the plaintiff to disclose identity of the author, to claim ownership of copyright.
35. In my opinion, for this reason alone, there can be no copyright in the plaintiff in the list aforesaid.
36. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of copyright thus have no chance of success in the suit and the plaint is liable to be rejected, insofar as on the premise of copyright. ”
En segundo lugar, el magistrado analiza la cláusula de confidencialidad suscrita por los trabajadores, desde la perspectiva de la cobertura que pueda alcanzar a la lista de clientes. Siguiendo en doctrina de India consideraciones vertidas por Prashant Reddy, entiende que no. Que se trata – al menos en el caso – de una serie de datos que son accesibles más allá del escenario privado de la demandante.
“39. Confidentiality and secrecy is claimed in the same works in which copyright is claimed viz. data, information and trade secrets residing in the electronic devices without again specifying the particulars thereof or secrecy thereof. Mere mention of research process, financial / administrative and / or organizational matter or transaction or affairs of the company or invention or discovery or patent protection does not satisfy the requirements of pleadings. The plaintiff as per its own admission is engaged in the business of providing logistics and freight forwarding services and is not engaged in any research work, it was incumbent for the plaintiff to, in the plaint, plead how the data etc. in which confidentiality is claimed is different from data of any other entity engaged in such business and what is secret about the same and what steps besides the clause aforesaid in the letters of appointment of defendants no.1 to 8 have been taken by the plaintiff to maintain secrecy / confidentiality thereof. The plaint in this regard is vague and cannot be put to trial. The whole purpose of pleadings in a civil suit is to let the opponent know the case to be met and which crystallizes ultimately in issues on which the parties go to trial. If such rules of pleadings are not to be adhered to, it will result in a fishing and roving enquiry and enable a party to the suit to secure a victory by springing a surprise during the course of trial. Similarly, an injunction qua confidentiality as sought, even if granted would be vague and unenforceable as aforesaid. This Court cannot pass such unenforceable order, the meaning whereof is not clear. It cannot be known, neither to the Court nor to the defendant as to what the defendant is injuncted from doing.”
(...)
“41. On facts as pleaded in plaint it appeared that there can be no confidentiality about such a list. Just like customers/clients of an Advocate practicing in the field of acquisition of land and determination of compensation therefor can comprise only of those whose land has been acquired and whose particulars are contained in the acquisition notification and/or award pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector, similarly the list of customers/clients of the plaintiff, carrying on business in the field of logistic and freight forwarding, can only comprise of businesses/industry requiring carriage of goods and material and none else. Names and contact addresses of such businesses are easily available in public domain. Any competitor of the plaintiff worth its salt would also know of such businesses/industry and be free to market his services to them, even if presently employing the service of the plaintiff. I am thus unable to fathom the confidentiality therein and during the hearing also repeatedly enquired about the same and also enquired about the particulars of other works/databases and in which also copyright and confidentiality was claimed. No answer was forthcoming. Every customer list cannot qualify as confidential information or a trade secret unless the confidentiality around such a list is of economic value/business value/commercial value. A thought also crossed my mind, whether not any employee of the plaintiff, dealing with the customers/clients of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, would have knowledge of the said customers/clients and their contact address even in the absence of a list and how could such an employee, when joining the employment of a competitor, be prevented from marketing the services of the competitor to the employees/clients at the address on which he was earlier servicing them under employment of the former employer and whether not it would amount to restraint of trade.”
La sentencia hace referencia a abundante jurisprudencia de la India, cuya lectura sin dudas enriquece y fortalece el pronunciamiento. Además es de suma utilidad para nosotros, lectores de la otra punta del mundo...
Personalmente, entiendo que la información alcanzada por la cláusula de confidencialidad es solamente aquella a la cual no se accede fuera del ámbito empresarial. Siendo datos que se ofrecen libremente, no puede hablarse de objeto de protección de secreto. Para que exista el secreto tiene que haber imposibilidad de acceso a la información y esa información – además – debe ser tratada como secreto.
La consideración de una mera lista de datos, que pueden obtenerse en guías o bases generales, no puede considerarse ni obra protegida, ni secreto empresarial. Siendo este el caso de la sentencia, es un veredicto totalmente compartible.
Aquí está el artículo que comenta esta sentencia, autoría del Dr Prashant Reddy
https://spicyip.com/2018/10/delhi-high-court-once-again-tackles-the-issue-of-ip-in-customer-lists-delivers-a-solid-judgment-in-favour-of-employees.html
Artículo anteior del Dr Prashant Reddy, específico sobre el tema.
"The ‘Other IP Right’: Is It Time to Codify the Indian Law on Protection of Confidential Information?”, Prashant Reddy
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2277401718787951
La sentencia se puede encontrar acá:
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/17-09-2018/RSE17092018SC7352016.pdf
