Ark. Code Ann. » Title 4 Chapter 75
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-604 (2026)

Injunctive relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.
  2. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist; however, the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
  3. If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.
  4. In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

History. Acts 1981, No. 439, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 70-1002.

Research References

ALR.

Applicability of Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Barring Employment of Competitor's Former Employee. 36 A.L.R.6th 537.

Case Notes

Evidence.

There was no evidence of any actual, threatened, or inevitable misappropriation where (1) the defendant had only a general working knowledge of his former employer's machines and processes and did not have in his possession any of the company's machine designs or blueprints, (2) the defendant candidly requested “guidance” from the chancellor as to what was his former employer's proprietary information so that he could avoid violating the parties' employment agreement, and (3) the defendant's vast general knowledge of the industry, as opposed to his engineering expertise, was of far greater value to his new employer than any knowledge of his former employer's trade secrets. Bendinger v. Marshalltown Trowell Co., 338 Ark. 410, 994 S.W.2d 468 (1999).

Agent gave no indication that it would disclose trade secrets after it terminated its relationship with a company, nor was there any evidence that it had to necessarily do so to conduct its business; thus, there was not enough evidence to support a finding of inevitable misappropriation pursuant to § 4-75-601(2). Statco Wireless, L.L.C. v. Southwestern Bell Wireless, L.L.C., 80 Ark. App. 284, 95 S.W.3d 13 (2003).

Scope of Relief.

Where a buyer knew that the supplier's source files contained confidential materials and trade secrets, and the supplier took steps to protect them and where the record showed that the buyer misappropriated them, injunctive relief ordering the buyer to delete the supplier's source files was warranted under this section of the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act because the supplier testified that the files were a years-long compilation of technical know-how it continually drew from, and if allowed to keep the files in its possession, the buyer could use them, or share them, in connection with another project, and there was nothing to suggest that the files' usefulness to the buyer had expired or would expire. Walmart Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, 949 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2020).

When Granted.

The actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined under the statute; the injunction will be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist or after an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate a commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. Cardinal Freight Carriers, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 336 Ark. 143, 987 S.W.2d 642 (1999).

Scope of Relief.

Allowing plaintiffs to prevent disclosure through an injunction fits with the purposes of this subchapter; in order to provide the plaintiffs true security, they must not only be protected from the defendant's anti-competitive use of the secrets, but also from the defendant's ability to publicly disclose such secrets, since public disclosure of the plaintiffs' secrets would render the protections under this subchapter meaningless. Southwestern Energy Co. v. Eickenhorst, 955 F. Supp. 1078 (W.D. Ark. 1997), aff'd, 175 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 1999).

Misappropriation may be proven and an injunction granted by demonstrating that the individual or entity will inevitably disclose the trade secrets if not enjoined. Southwestern Energy Co. v. Eickenhorst, 955 F. Supp. 1078 (W.D. Ark. 1997), aff'd, 175 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 1999).

Where a former employer alleged that a former employee copied trade secrets and solicited the former employer's clients to move their business to the current employer, and the former employer was granted a preliminary injunction based on nondisclosure and noncompetition provisions, although it would have been appropriate for the circuit court to enjoin the employee and the current employer under the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act also because the former employer's customer information came within the protection of the Act, this was a matter of discretion for the circuit court and the relief obtained would have been no broader. Freeman v. Brown Hiller, Inc., 102 Ark. App. 76, 281 S.W.3d 749 (2008), rehearing denied, — Ark. App. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 361 (May 7, 2008), review denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 584 (Sept. 4, 2008).

Cited: Allen v. Johar, Inc., 308 Ark. 45, 823 S.W.2d 824 (1992).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: The Ballard Grp. Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 (Ark. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Ballard Grp. Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 4× “Rather, the circuit court ruled that “[t]he complaint fails to allege that King or BP acquired, disclosed, or used Ballard’s trade secrets.”
Statco Wireless, LLC v. Sw. Bell Wireless, LLC, 95 S.W.3d 13 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-604 (Repl. 2001). Misappropriation means: (A) Acquisition of a trade secret of another person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or *23 (B) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or…”
City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas, 40 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-604 ; Cardinal Freight, supra .”
Bendinger v. Marshalltown Trowell Co., 994 S.W.2d 468 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 3× “Marshalltown points out that a number of courts have found that where an employee’s knowledge and skills are inextricably tied up with his employer’s trade secrets and the subsequent employment poses a substantial risk that the first employer’s trade secrets wifi be used, such…”
Allen v. Johar, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 824 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-601 (4) (Repl. 1991).”
Freeman v. Brown Hiller, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 749 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-604 (Repl. 2001). Misappropriation means: (A) Acquisition of a trade secret of another person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (B) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or…”
Integrated Direct Mktg., LLC v. May, 129 F. Supp. 3d 336 (E.D. Va. 2015). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-606 (West). In addition, “[a]ctual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Cardinal Freight Carriers, Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 987 S.W.2d 642 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “As we said in Johar, the actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined under § 4-75-604; the injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist or after an additional reasonable period of time in order to efiminate a commercial…”
Walmart, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, 949 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir. 2020). ““Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist; however, the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the…”
Brandon Mounce v. Jeronimo Insulating, LLC, 2021 Ark. App. 195 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “loan and breaching the employment agreement by stealing money from Jeronimo’s jobs), breach of fiduciary duty (leading to money damages), tortious interference with Jeronimo’s contractual relationships and Jeronimo’s business expectancy, misappropriation of trade secrets under…”
Texarkana Behavioral Assocs., L.C. v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (W.D. Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “At the time of the alleged use, UHS knew that the information was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use because UHS obtained the information pursuant to the confidentiality agreements, which both require secrecy and limit use…”
Sw. Energy Co. v. Eickenhorst, 955 F. Supp. 1078 (W.D. Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-604(a) (Repl.1996). Defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs are unable to show “misappropriation” centers on the definition of the term itself.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-604(a) — 4 cases
Allen v. Johar, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 824 (Ark. 1992). “Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-601 (4) (Repl. 1991).”
Texarkana Behavioral Assocs., L.C. v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (W.D. Ark. 2010). “At the time of the alleged use, UHS knew that the information was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use because UHS obtained the information pursuant to the confidentiality agreements, which both require secrecy and limit use…”
Sw. Energy Co. v. Eickenhorst, 955 F. Supp. 1078 (W.D. Ark. 1997). “Ark.Code Ann. § 4-75-604(a) (Repl.1996). Defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs are unable to show “misappropriation” centers on the definition of the term itself.”
Oliver v. Johanson (W.D. Ark. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.