From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
Penalty Kick Management Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
318 F.3d 1284 (2003)
Facts
Penalty Kick Management Ltd. (PKM) (plaintiff) created drink labels called Magic Windows that revealed a label’s code using a colored filter after the drink was emptied. PKM and Coca Cola Co. (defendant) signed a nondisclosure agreement to keep the label process a secret, and Coca-Cola offered PKM $1 million and a per-label royalty to use the labels globally. While the negotiations were ongoing, Coca-Cola met with Steve Everett, a salesman with ITW-Autosleeve (ITW), a label printer in Argentina. Coca-Cola asked whether Everett could make a window label and showed Everett a mock-up of a bottle with printer paper on one side and colored paper on the other side. Without any instructions, Everett created a window label by determining the type of printing press, inks, colors, and production process needed. Everett considered the task simple everyday printing that did not require new technology, and he completed the label in three weeks. After Coca-Cola used the labels on its bottles, PKM sued Coca-Cola for trade-secret misappropriation. The district court granted summary judgment for Coca-Cola and held that although Magic Windows was a trade secret, Coca-Cola did not misappropriate it. PKM appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
