Mallet & Company wins permanent ban after competitor sold release agents built from stolen formulas

Mallet & Company secured a permanent injunction barring Bundy Baking Solutions and its affiliate Synova from selling release agent products derived from Mallet's stolen trade secrets, according to PR Newswire. The federal court also ordered Bundy to destroy all materials referencing Mallet's formulas, processes, methods, and other proprietary information. The ruling closes a case that tested whether a mid-sized physical product manufacturer could protect its competitive advantage when a competitor copied the chemistry.

Mallet makes release agents for industrial baking—specialty coatings that keep dough from sticking to pans. The formulas are not patented. The company relies on trade secret protection: documented processes, restricted access, confidentiality agreements. When Bundy launched a competing product line that Mallet alleged was built from stolen formulas, Mallet sued. The court sided with Mallet, issuing the permanent ban and the destruction order. The message: if you document your secrets and enforce access controls, the law still backs you when someone lifts the work.

The mechanism is institutional trust in process discipline. Courts grant trade secret protection when a company shows it took reasonable steps to keep information secret and that the information has independent economic value. Mallet evidently met both tests. The permanent injunction means Bundy cannot sell the disputed products indefinitely, and the destruction order removes the copied material from circulation. For Mallet, the win preserves margin and customer relationships in a market where formulation is the entire moat. For any physical product brand, the case confirms that trade secret enforcement remains viable if the groundwork is in place before the leak.

The steal for a smaller brand: treat your formulation, sourcing list, or production process as a trade secret from day one, then create the paper trail that proves you protected it. First, document what qualifies as secret. Write a one-page inventory: ingredient ratios, supplier contacts, tooling specs, mixing sequences, anything a competitor could use to replicate your product without reverse engineering. Second, restrict access. Use password-protected files, label documents "Confidential," and limit sharing to employees or contractors who sign a nondisclosure agreement. Template NDAs cost nothing and courts recognize them. Third, mark your calendar to audit access annually. If you expand your team or work with a co-packer, update the NDA list and the access log. When you can show a judge that you treated the information as secret and that someone violated that boundary, you have a case. Budget: zero for the inventory and restrictions, under $500 if you pay a lawyer to review your NDA template once.

The broader pattern is that physical product brands often assume patents are the only IP protection, then skip trade secrets entirely. Patents are public. Trade secrets stay private as long as you maintain them. For formulations, supplier relationships, and process know-how, trade secret protection is faster, cheaper, and often stronger than a patent. Mallet's win shows that enforcement works when the documentation is in order. The next move is to inventory your secrets this week and get the access controls in writing.