Also known as: improper appropriations · misappropriation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine that imposes liability for the unauthorized taking or exploitation of another's property, identity, confidential information, or protected expression for one's own benefit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ibrahim Iqbal, a local celebrity, discovered that a beverage company had used his name and life story in an advertising campaign without permission. The campaign exploited his identity for commercial gain even though no defamatory statements appeared. The court held the company liable because the unauthorized exploitation constituted improper appropriation of his property right in his identity.
Ian Iverson learned from a client that another attorney had diverted client funds. The client asked Ian not to report the matter and offered a private restitution deal. Ian still had a duty to report because the information was not confidential and the misconduct was serious, so the failure to report exposed him to discipline.
Ines Ibarra, an attorney, transferred client trust money into her personal account intending to repay it later. No client suffered loss and she had an exemplary prior record. The court ordered disbarment because the knowing unauthorized taking of entrusted funds was misappropriation regardless of repayment intent or lack of harm.
Infinity Bank obtained time-sensitive financial data compiled by another firm and transmitted it to its own clients for profit before the original firm could distribute it. The original firm had invested substantial resources in gathering the data under strict distribution rules. The court found liability because the systematic appropriation of the fresh information for commercial advantage constituted improper appropriation.
Innovate Pharmaceuticals developed a new boat hull design and obtained a state injunction against a competitor that copied the design. Federal patent law already occupied the field of protecting unpatented utilitarian articles. The Supreme Court held the state remedy preempted because it attempted to confer rights equivalent to those under federal law through improper appropriation doctrine.
Integrity Partners developed secret processes for growing specialized crystals and sought state trade secret protection against former employees who used the information. The processes were not patented. The Supreme Court held that state trade secret law was not preempted by federal patent law because the two regimes protect different interests and do not conflict.
The plaintiff must show that the defendant took or used the plaintiff's protected interest without authorization and that the taking was for the defendant's benefit.
Access or copying is a factual predicate. Improper appropriation further requires that the taking reached a legally protected interest and was unauthorized.
Yes. Independent creation defeats the claim because there is no taking from the plaintiff's protected interest.
…has the characteristics of quasi-property as between competitors, sufficient to support an action for unfair competition by misappropriation. 2. The injunction against INS’s appropriation of AP’s fresh news is affirmed. 3. INS may not use the AP’s news as the source of its own news while the news retains commercial value,…