{"id":150251,"date":"2026-08-05T08:00:34","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T02:30:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=150251"},"modified":"2026-08-03T18:50:51","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T13:20:51","slug":"tremco-thermax-vebro-trade-secret-misappropriation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/tremco-thermax-vebro-trade-secret-misappropriation\/","title":{"rendered":"Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim Denied Over Flooring Formula"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p>Chemical formulas exchanged between rival flooring manufacturers, four ingredients freely available on the open market, and a mixing ratio that competitors apparently use in near-identical proportions: the Madras High Court&#8217;s inquiry into an alleged case of trade secret misappropriation turned on a question with surprisingly little mystery to it. Was there ever a secret worth protecting?<\/p>\n<p>Tremco (CPG) India Private Limited (&#8220;Tremco India&#8221;) manufactures specialised construction chemicals, including industrial flooring solutions and waterproofing systems, built on formulations it describes as proprietary. Its flagship product, Flowfresh SL, is a polyurethane cement flooring compound. Tremco India alleged that its former Managing Director, who resigned in mid-2023 after more than a decade with the company, incorporated a rival entity within weeks of leaving and, with other former employees, shared its formulations and customer lists with a group of related entities: Thermax Vebro Polymers India Private Limited (&#8220;Thermax Vebro&#8221;), Vebro Polymers Holdings Limited (&#8220;Vebro UK&#8221;), and Ghanati Projects Private Limited (&#8220;Ghanati&#8221;). Tremco India had earlier obtained an ad interim injunction in a connected suit, and when it discovered a Thermax Vebro product it believed replicated Flowfresh SL, it filed fresh applications in C.S.No.106 of 2025 to restrain the group from dealing in products derived from its trade secrets, from soliciting its customers, and from continuing what it termed unfair competition and passing off. The respondents applied to vacate the interim order granted in their favour on 30.04.2025.<\/p>\n<h2>Issues<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Whether Tremco India established a prima facie case of trade secret misappropriation over Flowfresh SL&#8217;s composition and mixing ratio.<\/li>\n<li>Whether components and ratios already in the public domain, and used by other manufacturers, can constitute protectable confidential information.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the balance of convenience favoured continuing the interim injunction against Thermax Vebro, Ghanati, and associated respondents.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the earlier UK settlement between Tremco India&#8217;s affiliate and Vebro UK bound respondents who were not parties to it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Tremco India&#8217;s Arguments<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Its former Managing Director and other erstwhile employees had direct access to confidential formulations and customer data, and used that knowledge to found competing ventures within weeks of departure.<\/li>\n<li>Laboratory analysis found that Thermax Vebro&#8217;s product, Vebrocrete SL, was compositionally identical to Flowfresh SL, supporting an inference of misappropriation.<\/li>\n<li>Internal communications showed employees sharing chemical formulas and customer lists with the incoming management of the rival entities.<\/li>\n<li>The corporate structure linking Thermax Vebro, Vebro UK, and Ghanati through shared directors and family relationships demonstrated a coordinated scheme to misappropriate its trade secrets.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Respondents&#8217; Arguments<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Tremco India never specified what precisely constituted its trade secret, nor how any respondent came to know of it, an omission fatal to a misappropriation claim.<\/li>\n<li>All four chemical components, an isocyanate, a polyol, a calcium carbonate filler, and a polyurethane pigment, were commercially available and used industry-wide.<\/li>\n<li>An independent spectroscopy analysis found no uniqueness in Flowfresh SL&#8217;s composition compared with competing products, including one by Sika India Private Limited using a near-identical filler ratio.<\/li>\n<li>The underlying polyurethane cement flooring technology was developed in the United Kingdom in 1969 by Imperial Chemical Industries and patented under the U-CRETE brand, a patent long since expired and now in the public domain.<\/li>\n<li>Thermax Vebro&#8217;s manufacturing rights flowed from a legitimate Technology License Agreement with Vebro UK, unconnected to any information belonging to Tremco India.<\/li>\n<li>Tremco India failed to produce any invoice or documentary proof establishing when or from whom it purchased the sample it sent for testing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Court&#8217;s Analysis<\/h2>\n<h3>What Counts as a Trade Secret<\/h3>\n<p>The court observed that a claim of trade secret misappropriation cannot rest on the mere fact that former employees moved to a competing venture. The court noted that Tremco India had not specified, with any precision, what its trade secret actually was, how each respondent came to acquire it, or how the confidentiality of that information had been maintained during the plaintiff\u2019s own operations. The court reasoned that a bare assertion of proprietary formulation, without particulars, cannot substitute for evidence in an application for interim relief.<\/p>\n<h3>Ingredients in the Public Domain<\/h3>\n<p>The court held that where a product&#8217;s components are freely available in the open market, and multiple manufacturers use comparable mixing ratios, a claim of trade secret misappropriation over that ratio loses much of its force. The court observed that the lab report relied upon by Thermax Vebro showed a competing manufacturer using a near-identical filler ratio, undermining any suggestion that the ratio was unique to Tremco India. The court further observed that the underlying flooring technology traced back to a 1969 UK patent that had long expired, placing the base technology in the public domain.<\/p>\n<h3>Corporate Structure Is Not Proof of Theft<\/h3>\n<p>The court found that the web of relationships connecting Thermax Vebro, Vebro UK, and Ghanati, through shared directors, family ties, and licensing arrangements, did not by itself establish that any of these entities had used Tremco India\u2019s confidential information. The court opined that suspicion arising from corporate proximity or employment history required corroboration through documentary or forensic evidence, which was largely absent from the record.<\/p>\n<h3>The Missing Chain of Evidence<\/h3>\n<p>The court stated that Tremco India had not produced an invoice or other proof establishing when, how, or from whom it obtained the sample of Vebrocrete SL that it sent for testing, a gap that weakened the evidentiary basis for the injunction. The court also noted that the settlement between Tremco India\u2019s UK affiliate and Vebro UK, reached in separate English proceedings, could not be read as an admission binding Thermax Vebro or Ghanati, neither of which had been party to that settlement.<\/p>\n<h3>Interim Relief Needs More Than Suspicion<\/h3>\n<p>The court reasoned that to sustain an interim injunction, an applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in its favour, and the likelihood of irreparable harm if relief is withheld. The court held that Tremco India had failed to satisfy this threshold, and that the questions raised, including whether the mixing ratios amounted to protectable trade secrets, were better suited to determination at trial rather than at the interlocutory stage. The court further observed that an interim order granted ex parte cannot continue indefinitely once contested evidence casts doubt on the applicant\u2019s prima facie case.<\/p>\n<h2>Findings<\/h2>\n<p>In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Madras High Court held that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Tremco India failed to establish a prima facie case of trade secret misappropriation over Flowfresh SL&#8217;s composition or mixing ratio.<\/li>\n<li>The chemical components were commercially available, and the claimed proprietary ratio was not shown to be unique among competing manufacturers.<\/li>\n<li>The corporate and employment links between the respondents did not, without corroborating evidence, establish misappropriation of confidential information.<\/li>\n<li>The UK settlement between Tremco India&#8217;s affiliate and Vebro UK had no bearing on claims against respondents who were not parties to it.<\/li>\n<li>The balance of convenience did not favour continuing the interim injunction, and the questions raised required determination at trial.<\/li>\n<li>The applications filed by Tremco India in O.A. Nos. 494 to 497 of 2025 stood dismissed, and the respondents&#8217; applications to vacate the earlier injunction stood allowed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Case Citation:<\/strong><em> Tremco (CPG) India Private Limited vs. Thermax Vebro Polymers India Private Limited and Others<\/em>, O.A. Nos. 494 to 497 of 2025 and A.Nos. 4800, 5164 &amp; 5165 of 2025 in C.S.No.106 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided on 30 April 2026. Available at https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/167947423\/.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tremco (CPG) India accused former employees and rival flooring manufacturers of misappropriating its trade secrets before the Madras High Court. Weighing a trade secret misappropriation claim over a polyurethane flooring formula, the court examined whether commercially available ingredients could ever be proprietary, and vacated the interim injunction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":150253,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":7,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,135],"tags":[4452,132,13136,13137,4374,1957,1160,13138,13135,1769],"class_list":["post-150251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trade-secrets","tag-balance-of-convenience","tag-confidential-information","tag-flowfresh-sl","tag-former-employees","tag-interim-injunction","tag-madras-high-court","tag-passing-off","tag-polyurethane-flooring","tag-prima-facie-case","tag-trade-secret-misappropriation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150251"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150251\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":150252,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150251\/revisions\/150252"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/150253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}