1997), decided on 18 September 1997, the case concerned the applicant`s assertion that the defendant had unfairly acquired the applicant`s business secrets and, despite contractual agreements which prohibited disclosure by all means that existed before the action between them, the defendant used the trade secrets to obtain a “competitive advantage”. Despite this finding, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the defendant and stated that the complainant`s fault was that he was unable to take appropriate measures to preserve confidentiality. Since the applicant`s confidentiality agreement was valid only for a limited period (in this case for a period of only 10 years), the applicant could not claim “eternal vigilance” over the company`s business secrets. Thus, because of the forfeiture clause contained in the confidentiality agreement, the General Court did not refer an action for interim measures to the applicant for lack of merits of his action. . . .