1. 1. Requirement to undertake reasonable steps to keep the information secret - art. 2(1)(c)
  2. 2. Reverse Engineering - e.g. art. 3(1)(b)
  3. 3. Infringing products - e.g. art. 2(4) and 4(5)
  4. 4. The (IP-like) catalogue of remedies - e.g. art. 10 and 12
  5. 5. Exceptions / allowed uses (and their relationship to contractual secrecy provisions) - art. 1 and 5
  6. 6. Secrecy in court proceedings (“confidentiality club”) - art. 9

jurisdiction

Bulgaria
Add jurisdiction

1. Requirement to undertake reasonable steps to keep the information secret - art. 2(1)(c)

Relevant national case law regarding this issue is scarce, and manly from the Commission for Protection of Competition (the CPC). The CPC is the first instance authority handling unfair competition cases, including cases on unauthorised use or disclosure of protected trade secrets. As a general note, proceedings in front of the CPC aim to sanction the infringer, while civil damages are sought in court in accordance with the Bulgarian Trade Secret Protection Act.  

In one of its decisions, the CPC holds that “the factual content of the provision (the definition of trade secret) provides for the protection of specific data protected by specific means following a management decision to do so. An argument for the lack of confidentiality of the information and of adequate measures for its protection as confidential (trade secret) within the meaning of the special definition of the Protection of Competition Act is also the fact that there is no distinction between the rights of access to information of employees according to their job description or other criteria.” [Decision № 134, dated 24.02.2022, under CPC case with ref. № КЗК-873/4.11.2021]

Another CPC decision holds that “the inclusion of identical confidentiality clauses in the employment contracts signed by employees, containing confidentiality obligations regarding all available company information, does not satisfy the requirement for the undertaking to take special measures to protect its business secrets and does not meet the factual requirements of the provision of Article 37 of the Protection of Competition Act.” [Decision № 767, dated 29.07.2021, under CPC case with ref. № КЗК-626/17.09.2020 (apis.bg)]

The CPC also states that: “Furthermore, the information has commercial value due to its secret nature and the fact that measures have been taken to keep it secret by the person who has control over the information, […]. The above information has been declared in advance in an internal act that it constitutes a business secret and measures have been taken to protect it by restricting access to it.” [Decision № 378, dated 15.04.2021, under CPC case with ref. № КЗК-102/1.02.2021 (apis.bg)]

2. Reverse Engineering - e.g. art. 3(1)(b)

This corresponds to Article 7, par. 1, item 2 from the Bulgarian Trade Secret Protection Act, and there is no relevant case law.

3. Infringing products - e.g. art. 2(4) and 4(5)

Case law on these provisions is scarce. We note the following court decisions:

“Goods whose design, characteristics, functioning, production process or marketing are substantially influenced favourably by trade secrets that have been unlawfully acquired, used, or disclosed, can be the subject of an infringement claim under the Bulgarian Trade Secret Protection Act. The same rule applies to services whose characteristics and manner of provision or marketing are substantially influenced favourably by trade secrets that have been unlawfully acquired, used, or disclosed.” [Decision № 16 of 7.01.2020 of Regional Court Dobrich under civil case № 1376/2019 г. (apis.bg)]

“Non-pecuniary damages may arise from the impairment of any legally protected goods, whether they are subject to absolute subjective rights such as unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets.” [Decision № 260034 от 28.07.2022 г. of Dobrich District Court under commercial case № 198/2020 г. (apis.bg)]

4. The (IP-like) catalogue of remedies - e.g. art. 10 and 12

There is no case law in this regard.

5. Exceptions / allowed uses (and their relationship to contractual secrecy provisions) - art. 1 and 5

One such exception relates to the use of trade secret by courts. On 5 April 2019, the Trade Secrets Protection Act was adopted, which, according to its Article 2, does not apply to the disclosure of a trade secret by its holder when, under EU law or Bulgarian law, such disclosure is in the public interest or is necessary for the exercise of the powers of public authorities. The court, as a public authority, has the right of access to the business secrets of any party to a case where this is necessary to clarify the legally relevant facts of the dispute.
(Decision № 240, dated 23.10.2019, of Dobrich District Court under civil case № 551/2019 (apis.bg)

Another exception relates to the use of experience and skills acquired by the employee in good faith during their employment with their former employer. According to the relevant court decision: “[….], [the Trade Secrets Protection Act] cannot be applied as a ground for restricting employees from using experience and skills acquired in good faith during their employment, i.e. the applicant is free to take up employment with another pawnbroker and use the experience and skills acquired with the previous employer.” (Decision № 260097, dated 21.08.2020, of Regional Court Burgas under civil case № 9962/2019 (apis.bg)

6. Secrecy in court proceedings (“confidentiality club”) - art. 9

Case law on this matter is also scarce. Please see below one example:

The Supreme Court of Cassation states that: “Confidentiality measures as envisaged in the Trade Secret Protection Act are only applicable in court proceedings that are initiated to protect the confidentiality of a trade secret. This means that if a party brings a claim under another piece of legislation, that party will not be able to rely on the confidentiality measures that stem from the Trade Secret Protection Act.” [Ruling № 322, dated 20.07.2022, of the Supreme Court of Cassation under private commercial case № 1081/2022 г., II Commercial Department (apis.bg)]

According to the Bulgarian Trade Secret Protection Act, the court may impose the following Confidentiality measures:

  1. Restrict in full or in part access to a document submitted in the case, which contains a trade secret or which is alleged to contain a trade secret, by providing access to the document only to designated persons.
  2. Restrict access to court hearings and to relevant records and minutes by ruling the case to be examined or certain actions to be performed in camera.
  3. Draw up a version of a judicial act for the persons who are deprived of access to the trade secret with the trade secret deleted.