NON-SOLICITATION AGREEMENTS

Texas Attorney

A non-solicitation agreement is a legal agreement between two or more parties that consists of a set of standards to abide by regarding the protection of business clients after employment.

KEEPING AN EX-EMPLOYEE FROM STEALING YOUR CUSTOMERS

How Can A Business Lawyer Protect My Business?

It is no secret that in the business world, individuals that were once your best allies can become your worst enemies. Additionally, these allies may be former employees, who happen to know your business, your customers, and also know how to correlate the two together. This in return can be a nightmare if the employee is fired or quits and makes the choice to take this knowledge someone else. Furthermore, it’s essential to know in which ways to prevent an exodus of said clients at the hands of an ex-employee to prevent business loss. 


Our Dallas business attorneys can advise you on a wide range of business and corporate agreements. When you work with our firm, you can rest assured you will receive diligent legal counsel from a lawyer well versed in business, corporate and commercial law.

Executing A Non-Solicitation Agreement

Upon hiring an employee, a business owner should consider having them sign a non-solicitation agreement. This agreement states that the employee can not contact any of the said business clients for a certain period of time after they leave their position, whether they are let go or leave on their own. Even though this agreement will not provide protection long term, it buys you time after they leave. During this time, it is wise to secure your relationship with these clients to prevent anything happening as far as the ex-employee stealing them away.

Each state has their own non-solicitation agreement laws, so it’s essential to check the requirements for the area in which your business is located. A few key elements to consider are:


  • You must have a valid reason for the agreement.
  • You must have confidential information that needs protection.
  • You must include a statement that your employees and customers are not prohibited from leaving their jobs or a business relationship.

Proving a Violation of a Non-disclosure Agreement

If a non-solicitation agreement is executed, its crucial to know that you are only protected from your former client contacting your clients. Unfortunately, you will not be sheltered from any of your clients contacting your former employees. This in return means that if you did have a case, your former employee is not likely to admit they were the ones who made contact with the clients first and would be hard to prove. In order to protect yourself to a fuller extent, it’s best to include a clause to the agreement that states that for a given amount of time, employees can make no contact whatsoever with the clients of the company regardless of who initiates the contact.

Insider- Dealing, What is it?

One issue to consider may be an insider obtaining client information for customer poaching. This may look like one of your top salespeople switching to a new position within a competitive company, while remaining friends with individuals at your company while using them to obtain client data or contact information. To get ahead of a possible situation that mirrors such, additional non-solicitation agreement clauses are needed that directly address the recruitment of other employees and the ability to work for a competitor for a given time.

Perceived Legality

If the said customers were a part of an internal company lead, they may be protected by the law. Moreover, anyone who worked for the company is unable to use information provided to them by your company to solicit goods or services, also know as “trade secrets”. These secrets are perceived to be protected by law, but it’s always best to consult with an attorney experienced in this area of law.


Additionally, the American Bar Association reported on a case from 2017 focusing on the United States District Court’s decision for the Eastern District of New York regarding Art & Cook, Inc. v. Haber. The issue in question, was the definition of “reasonable measures” that were taken to protect company information and whether or not a customer list can be classified as a trade secret? For this case in particular, the customer list was generated from publicly sourced information and therefore not eligible for protection under the Defend Trade Secret Act. Overall, this case highlights that a case cannot be made against a former employee stealing customer information if it is public.  

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it for Wilson Legal Group Logo

CLIENT MATTERS


5,000+


YEARS OF SERVICE

 25+

Award Winning

Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.

Expert Team

Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you. 

Quality Representation

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A bartender is pouring whiskey into a glass at a bar.
By John Wilson May 6, 2025
TABC Administrative Proceedings in Texas 
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
A building with a sign that says law offices on it
By John Wilson February 12, 2025
Strategic Legal Representation for Complex Business Litigation
Show More