Don't Get Tricky, Mr. Rikhy - Trade Secret Consent Decrees Should Not Be Violated
By Todd
When you're caught, you're caught. Seems Mr. Abhijit Rikhy, doing business as Quik Commission, got caught stealing a competitor's trade secrets. Mr. Rikhy operates a business providing cash advances to real estate agents who have completed sales but are waiting to get paid their commission. That's the same business Commission Express National, Inc. (editor's note - somebody might want to advise Mr. Rikhy about the value in incorporating) is in. After Mr. Rikhy got nabbed apparently having stolen a significant number of Commission Express National's operational agreements and got sued, he entered into a consent decree filed with the New York federal court. After entering into that consent decree, Mr. Rikhy was bowed but unbroken. So the story goes on - he violated the consent decree and in doing so even, and this might be a first in the annals of New York law, pirated Commission Express National's customer testimonials via a commission question and answer log - and even posted them on his website!
"NO, NO, NO!" says Commission Express National in their motion seeking enforcement of the consent decree and "NO, NO, NO!" says the Court. Mr. Rikhy got hauled into court and he defended himself saying "these are not trade secrets." Might have been a good point, concedes the Court, if you'd argued that at a different stage of this proceeding. But here, Mr. Rikhy, we are examining your alleged violation of the consent decree, not the law. Mr. Rikhy got hit with approximately $75,000 in sanctions, $53,000 of which were in disgorgement sanctions relating to the benefit he derived from using the commission question and answer materials.
THE RULE OF THIS CASE? Negotiate that trade secret theft consent order - and then abide by it. Don't make your post-consent order conduct the subject of future litigation through the splitting of trade secret hairs. You will be going before the same judge and if the argument didn't work the first time, or you didn't make it, that same judge will likely say "you should've successfully argued that last time we met." Commission Express National, Inc. v. Rikhy, 2006 WL 385323 (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2006)(slip copy).
"NO, NO, NO!" says Commission Express National in their motion seeking enforcement of the consent decree and "NO, NO, NO!" says the Court. Mr. Rikhy got hauled into court and he defended himself saying "these are not trade secrets." Might have been a good point, concedes the Court, if you'd argued that at a different stage of this proceeding. But here, Mr. Rikhy, we are examining your alleged violation of the consent decree, not the law. Mr. Rikhy got hit with approximately $75,000 in sanctions, $53,000 of which were in disgorgement sanctions relating to the benefit he derived from using the commission question and answer materials.
THE RULE OF THIS CASE? Negotiate that trade secret theft consent order - and then abide by it. Don't make your post-consent order conduct the subject of future litigation through the splitting of trade secret hairs. You will be going before the same judge and if the argument didn't work the first time, or you didn't make it, that same judge will likely say "you should've successfully argued that last time we met." Commission Express National, Inc. v. Rikhy, 2006 WL 385323 (E.D.N.Y., February 17, 2006)(slip copy).
2 Comments:
some of the facts seem to be wrong in this, if you read it closely Mr. Rikhy wasnt caught stealing he was guilty by Hon. Judge Sifton of violating a prior consent decree sign in federal court.
excellent information. thank you for alerting us to mr. rikhy's activity. we have included a post here alerting consumers to his more recent activity: http://companywatchdog.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/ssw-printing-registered-by-abhijit-rikhy/
Post a Comment
<< Home