Iš neteisėto pasinaudojimo komercine paslaptimi gautos naudos priteisimo nukentėjusiam asmeniui problemos

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama, kokiu teisiniu pagrindu (taikant civilinės atsakomybės ar nepagrįsto praturtėjimo institutą) nukentėjusiam asmeniui turėtų būti priteisiama iš nesąžiningos konkurencijos, neteisėtai atskleidus ir pasinaudojus komercine paslaptimi, veiksmų gauta nauda. Straipsnyje taip pat analizuojami savo turiniu nauji Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktikos išaiškinimai dėl civilinės atsakomybės taikymo už nesąžiningos konkurencijos veiksmus ryšium su nukentėjusio asmens negauto pelno ir iš pažeidimo gautos naudos priteisimu, jų santykiu. Straipsnyje vertinamas tokių išaiškinimų teisinis pagrįstumas bei galimi neigiami padariniai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Komercinė paslaptis; Trade secret.

ENIt is recognised in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania that the person injured by unfair competition actions upon unlawful disclosure and use of a trade secret (hereinafter referred to as unfair competition actions) has the right to seek a court order for the benefit derived from unfair competition actions to be awarded. Though, in the assessment of legal regulation and the case law of the court of cassation, considerable doubts arise about the legal basis on which the benefit derived from unfair competition actions is awarded to the injured person. In the light of the above, this article analyses whether the benefit derived from unfair competition actions has to be awarded by applying civil liability or the institute of unjust enrichment. The article also deals with the new judicial interpretations in relation to civil liability for unfair competition actions, related to the awarding of the injured person’s loss of profit and the infringer’s benefit (including the correlation between them), developed by the Supreme Court of Lithuania. The article assesses the legal sufficiency of such judicial interpretations and possible negative consequences of their application. The analysis of the rules is followed by the conclusion that such judicial interpretations can lead to a flaw practice, which does not comply with specific features of unfair competition actions. Moreover, the judicial interpretations create opportunities for the employee having unlawfully disclosed the trade secret to avoid civil liability by shifting all or most of the negative consequences only to the competitor having unlawfully used the trade secret. [From the publication]