Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Carter Products
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
230 F.2d 855 (1956)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Joseph Spitzer (plaintiff) had an idea for a shaving cream that would emerge from the can already in the form of a durable lather. Spitzer and his colleagues worked with two chemists—Reich and Fine, who signed confidentiality agreements—to develop a pressurized shaving cream for which they obtained a patent. Spitzer granted an exclusive license to Carter Products (plaintiff) to market and sell the shaving cream under the brand name Rise. Rise was an immediate commercial success. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate) (defendant), one of Rise’s competitors, tried and failed to create a competitive pressurized shaving-cream product, until it hired Fine. Fine gave Colgate a formula for success by taking the Rise formula and improving upon it to make an even creamier lather. Fine did so by helping Colgate adopt a lathering process he had been working on at Rise. Colgate was aware of Fine’s confidentiality agreement and that Fine was suggesting processes to Colgate that had worked for Rise. Spitzer and Carter Products sued Colgate for patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The lower court held that Colgate misappropriated Carter Products’ trade secrets and enjoined Colgate from infringing the related patent. Colgate appealed, arguing that it could not be held liable for trade-secret misappropriation because Fine, not Colgate, had a confidentiality agreement with Spitzer and Carter Products.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.