Public Disclosure And The Fragility Of Trade Secret Protection: Lessons From Startup Pitch Platforms

The rise of startup pitch platforms particularly televised investment shows such as Shark Tank India has transformed the way early-stage businesses access capital and public visibility. These platforms offer founders unparalleled exposure enabling them to present their business models, revenue strategies and operational metrics before investors and a national audience. However, this visibility also introduces a fundamental legal tension between publicity and intellectual property protection. A recurring assumption among founders is that signing non-disclosure agreements ("NDAs") provides sufficient protection for proprietary information disclosed during pitch presentations. In practice however, the legal effectiveness of such protection is constrained by a core doctrinal principle of intellectual property law, particularly trade secret protection depends on maintaining confidentiality. Once commercially valuable information enters the public domain through voluntary disclosure its legal protection is significantly diminished or extinguished altogether. This dynamic raises important questions regarding the effectiveness of confidentiality agreements in publicly broadcast pitch environments and the broader implications for intellectual property strategy.

Trade Secret Protection and the Requirement of Secrecy

Unlike patents or copyrights, trade secrets are not protected through statutory registration. Instead, their protection arises from the maintenance of secrecy and the prevention of unauthorised disclosure or misuse. Indian courts have consistently recognised trade secrets as a species of confidential information, enforceable through contractual obligations and equitable doctrines. The legal foundation for trade secret protection in India rests primarily on contractual confidentiality obligations and common law principles of equity. In John Richard Brady v. Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd.¹ the Delhi High Court recognised that confidential business information, including technical know-how and commercial data, may be protected where confidentiality is preserved. However, secrecy is the defining requirement. Once confidential information becomes publicly available through voluntary disclosure, its character as a trade secret is irretrievably lost. Courts have repeatedly held that confidentiality cannot subsist in information that is already in the public domain. In American Express Bank Ltd. v. Priya Puri², the Delhi High Court emphasised that information loses its confidential character when it becomes publicly known or readily accessible. This principle reflects the underlying logic of trade secret protection being the law that protects secrecy not information itself.

Voluntary Disclosure and Its Legal Consequences

Televised pitch presentations inherently involve voluntary disclosure. Founders often describe their business model, pricing structure, supply chain arrangements, customer acquisition strategy and revenue metrics. These disclosures once broadcast become accessible to the general public, including competitors. The legal consequence of such disclosure is profound. Information voluntarily placed in the public domain cannot subsequently be reclaimed as confidential or proprietary. This principle is well established in Indian jurisprudence. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd.³, the Bombay High Court held that ideas or information disclosed without adequate confidentiality safeguards lose legal protection particularly where they become publicly accessible. Thus, while NDAs may protect information disclosed privately, they cannot retroactively restore confidentiality to information already disclosed publicly.

Limitations of Copyright and Patent Protection

Other intellectual property regimes provide limited assistance in this context. Copyright law protects the expression of ideas not the ideas themselves. Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 protects original literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works. However, business models, pricing strategies and commercial concepts are not protected unless expressed in specific fixed forms. Indian courts have consistently recognised this distinction. In R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films⁴, the Supreme Court held that copyright protects only the expression of ideas not the underlying idea itself.

Patent protection is also constrained by public disclosure. Under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 an invention must be novel. Public disclosure prior to filing a patent application can destroy novelty, rendering the invention unpatentable. This principle ensures that patent rights are granted only in exchange for controlled disclosure not after unrestricted public revelation. Accordingly, founders who publicly disclose patentable inventions before filing patent applications risk forfeiting their ability to obtain patent protection.

Value of NDAs

NDAs serve an important function in protecting confidential information disclosed in private settings. They impose contractual obligations on recipients to maintain confidentiality and refrain from unauthorised use. However, NDAs cannot protect information that becomes public through voluntary disclosure. Once confidential information is broadcast to the public, competitors who independently access that information are not bound by contractual confidentiality obligations unless they themselves are parties to the NDA. This reflects a fundamental limitation of contract law being that contractual obligations bind only the parties to the contract not the public at large. Consequently, NDAs signed between founders and show producers or investors do not prevent third-party competitors from using publicly disclosed information.

The commercial risks associated with public disclosure are significant. Competitors who observe publicly broadcast information may gain insight into business models, cost structures, supply chain arrangements and market strategies. Because such information is publicly available, its use by competitors does not constitute misappropriation. Trade secret law protects against unauthorised acquisition or disclosure not lawful observation of publicly available information. This distinction reflects a core principle of intellectual property law. It protects proprietary rights without restricting lawful competition based on publicly available knowledge.

Conclusion

The legal implications of public disclosure underscore the importance of proactive intellectual property strategy. Founders must carefully assess which information can be safely disclosed and which must remain confidential. Protection strategies may include securing patent filings prior to disclosure, limiting disclosure of sensitive information and negotiating contractual controls over broadcast content where possible. The timing and scope of disclosure play a critical role in determining whether intellectual property protection can be preserved.

The intersection of startup pitch platforms and intellectual property law illustrates a fundamental tension between publicity and confidentiality. While televised pitch platforms offer valuable exposure, they also entail legal risks arising from voluntary public disclosure. Trade secret protection depends on secrecy, patent protection depends on novelty and copyright protection depends on expression rather than ideas. Once proprietary information enters the public domain through voluntary disclosure legal protections are significantly weakened or extinguished. For founders, the key lesson is clear. Intellectual property protection must be secured before public disclosure, not after. In the absence of such precautions the legal system offers limited recourse against competitors who lawfully rely on publicly available information.

Footnotes

1. 1987 SCC OnLine Del 372

2. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 638

3. 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 27

4. (1978) 4 SCC 118

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.