Procter & Gamble Co. v. Stoneham
Ohio Court of Appeals
747 N.E.2d 268 (2000)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Procter & Gamble Co. (Procter & Gamble) (plaintiff) was a large corporation that manufactured, among other things, hair-care products. Paul Stoneham (defendant) was a senior-level manager at Procter & Gamble. Stoneham was responsible for the international marketing of Procter & Gamble’s hair-conditioning products. He compiled data that Procter & Gamble obtained on foreign markets and created models. Stoneham had access to plans to develop and introduce new hair-conditioning products, and he helped create a confidential 10-year plan to market Procter & Gamble’s best-selling conditioner. When Stoneham was first hired at Procter & Gamble, he signed a confidentiality agreement. After being at Procter & Gamble for 10 years, Stoneham was offered company stock options in return for signing a noncompete agreement that prohibited Stoneham from working for a competitor for three years after leaving Procter & Gamble. Stoneham signed the noncompete agreement. After working for Procter & Gamble for 13 years, Stoneham left for a job as president of the international arm of Alberto-Culver. Alberto-Culver manufactured some hair conditioners that competed with Procter & Gamble’s hair conditioners. Procter & Gamble sued Stoneham for breach of his noncompete agreement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court dismissed Proctor & Gamble’s claims, holding that Procter & Gamble had failed to show that either: (1) the parties had an enforceable noncompete agreement or (2) Stoneham had been exposed to confidential information and trade secrets. Procter & Gamble appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hildebrandt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.