NEWS

Four-Year Review of the Trade Secrets Act (GeschGehG)

 Contents

The Trade Secrets Act (GeschGehG), which came into force on April 26, 2019, is based on the EU Directive for the protection of confidential know-how and business information. It marks a significant improvement in the protection of trade secrets in Germany, which were previously primarily regulated under criminal law as “betrayal of trade and business secrets.”

Key Aspects of the GeschGehG

  • Strengthening the Rights of Secret Holders: The law strengthens the claims of holders against potential violators of their trade secrets.
  • Requirement for Appropriate Confidentiality Measures: A key innovation is the need for “appropriate confidentiality measures” to protect know-how as a trade secret.
  • Definition of a Trade Secret: A trade secret is information that is not generally known or readily accessible, has economic value, is protected by appropriate measures, and has a legitimate interest in being kept secret.

Challenges and Practical Implementation

  • Uncertainties in the Definition of Appropriate Measures: There is no clear list of measures that companies must take to protect their information as trade secrets.
  • Criteria for Assessing Appropriateness: These include the type of secret, its use, value, the nature of the information, company size, and existing confidentiality measures.
  • Various Protective Measures: Companies can implement organizational, technical, and legal measures, including access restrictions, contractual provisions, and non-disclosure agreements.
  • Need for Regular Review: Companies must regularly review and adjust their protective measures to safeguard their intellectual capital.
  • Burden of Proof on the Secret Holder: The holder must be able to prove the measures taken in the event of a legal violation.

New Developments and Outlook

  • Permission for Reverse Engineering: Another important change is the permission for reverse engineering according to § 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 GeschGehG, which allows a trade secret to be obtained by observing, examining, deconstructing, or testing a product. Previously, this was only allowed if any expert could derive the trade secret without significant time, labor, and cost. Therefore, it is important to keep “reverse engineering” in mind, especially in confidentiality agreements, and to consider it appropriately.
  • Further Development of Jurisprudence: As the GeschGehG is relatively new, further clarifications by the jurisprudence are expected.

To the point

Companies should continuously inform themselves about developments in the area of the GeschGehG and take and document appropriate confidentiality measures to effectively protect their trade secrets. We are happy to assist you in this regard.

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.
AI / Personality Rights

LG Hamburg: AI-generated X post remains attributable to the account operator

The Regional Court of Hamburg held that a continuing defamatory false statement on X remains unlawful under the law of statements even if the post was generated by AI. The account operator can be held responsible for the published content.
AI

Cologne Higher Regional Court: Meta may provisionally use public Facebook and Instagram data for AI training

The Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected an interim injunction against Meta’s announced use of publicly shared Facebook and Instagram data for AI training. In its summary assessment, the court considered the processing likely lawful, in particular on the basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München