Connecticut Statutes
§ 35-51 — Definitions.
Connecticut § 35-51
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 35Trade Regulations, Trademarks and Collective and Certification Marks
Ch. 625Uniform Trade Secrets Act
This text of Connecticut § 35-51 (Definitions.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-51 (2026).
Text
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)“Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means, including searching through trash.
(b)“Misappropriation” means:
(1)Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (i) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Group Of America, Inc.
164 F.3d 736 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Mortensen
606 F.3d 22 (Second Circuit, 2010)
On-Line Technologies v. Perkin Elmer Corp.
141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Connecticut, 2001)
Bulldog New York LLC v. Pepsico, Inc.
8 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D. Connecticut, 2014)
Dreamcatcher Software Development, LLC v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc.
298 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Connecticut, 2004)
Bowers v. United States
931 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
On-Line Technologies, Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp.
253 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
Saye v. Old Hill Partners, Inc.
478 F. Supp. 2d 248 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
United Rentals, Inc. v. Price
473 F. Supp. 2d 342 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Panterra Engineered Plastics, Inc. v. Transportation System Solutions, LLC
539 F. Supp. 2d 600 (D. Connecticut, 2008)
Commissioner of Env. Prot. v. Terminix, No. X03 Cv-0510942 (Jan. 3, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 139 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Lcd Lighting, Inc. v. Voltarc, Inc., No. Cv 02-0462839 (Mar. 24, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3649 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
Stanley Scholsohn Family Parts. v. MacChia, No. Cv95-0380809 (Sep. 13, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5495-ZZZZ (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Beekley Corporation v. Doyle, No. Cv 95-0466681 S (Jan. 17, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 979 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Curtis Packaging Corp. v. Kpmg LLP, No. X06 Cv99-0156558s (Mar. 23, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4072 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Heritage Benefit Consultants v. Cole, No. Cv-00-162270s (Feb. 23, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2891 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Roller Bearing Company of America, Inc. v. Multicut North America, Inc.
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Classic Limo Airport S. v. Alliance Limo, No. Cv99 0174911 (Aug. 1, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9446 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. McAndrews
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Ashfield Health LLC v. Jacobson
(D. Connecticut, 2022)
Legislative History
(P.A. 83-344, S. 2; P.A. 95-79, S. 134, 189; 95-283, S. 64, 68; P.A. 97-110.) History: P.A. 95-79 redefined “person” to include a limited liability company, effective May 31, 1995; P.A. 95-283 made technical change to replace reference to Sec. 12-62(b) with Sec. 12-62(c), effective July 6, 1995; P.A. 97-110 amended Subsec. (a) by adding “including searching through trash”. Defendant's knowledge of the trade secret is an element of misappropriation claim under Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(iii) and defendant cannot “use” the trade secret for purposes of the statute if defendant does not have knowledge of the trade secret itself. 349 C. 513. Subsec. (d): Plaintiffs met secrecy requirement of Subdiv. (2); trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff had a trade secret as defined therein. 251 C. 59. Not all components of a secret business plan are necessarily trade secrets; plaintiff corporation's plan to use open chest surgery products to generate cash in a declining market was an element of plaintiff's future business strategy and defendant's disclosure of plan constituted misappropriation of trade secret; employee seeking to purchase a publicly traded corporation is not competing with the shareholder owners of trade secret and does not seek to deprive them of right to profit from their investments. 282 C. 209. There were insufficient facts that certain exhibits were trade secrets that should be sealed, and certain other exhibits contained information already in the public domain and should not have been sealed. 120 CA 837.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 35-1
Use of fictitious business names. Prohibitions and exceptions. Penalty. Unfair trade practices.§ 35-11a
Definitions.§ 35-11c
Application for registration.§ 35-11g
Cancellation of registration.§ 35-11h
Classes of goods and services.§ 35-11i
Illegal use of mark. Remedies.§ 35-11j
Fraudulent registration.§ 35-11k
Common law rights not affected.§ 35-18a
Definitions.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 35-51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/35-51.