Car Shipper’s Federal — But Not State — Trade Secrets Claims Survive in Alleged Cross-Border Undercutting Scheme

In Montway’s industry, a customer who wants to ship her car reaches out to a broker with her location, destination, and vehicle information. The broker — like Montway — responds with a quote and posts the shipping job to a centralized “load board” viewable by other brokers and carriers, or the entities who would physically transport a vehicle. If a carrier thinks that the offered price is fair, then it may accept the job. The broker then connects the carrier and the customer and takes a cut of the quoted price as a broker’s fee. To maintain the competitiveness of the brokerage system and to prevent undercutting, brokers do not include a customer’s identity or contact information.

Montway operates a Bulgaria-based subsidiary, MDG EOOD, that runs its sales operation. MDG EOOD had two employees: Ivan Karakostov and Radion Tzakov. In 2023, while still employed by MDG EOOD, Karakostov formed a competing broker, Navi Transport Services LLC. Soon after he formed the company and quit MDG EOOD, Karakostov approached Tzakov and encouraged him to leave MDG EOOD and join Navi, which he did.

After Karakostov and Tzakov left, Montway observed a consistent pattern. For multiple customer inquiries that Montway had internally recorded and quoted — but before those customers accepted Montway’s quotes and before any job was posted to the load board — Navi appeared on the load board posting with what Montway describes as the same shipment at a lower price. Montway then lost the opportunity. Montway alleged that the most plausible explanation was that Navi was obtaining the identities and contact details of Montway’s prospective customers from current Montway employees and then using that information to send unsolicited, lower quotes that undercut Montway.

There were other factors that made Montway suspicious. Navi’s website generally resembled Montway’s, including its terms of use page. It also contained a handful of peculiar, similarly worded reviews, including multiple reviews by people with the same name. One customer even stated in a review that Navi “solicited” her business. And Navi’s website claimed that it had shipped more than 20,000 vehicles despite being new and having a minimal online footprint.

Montway and MDG EOOD sued Navi, Karakostov, and Tzakov for inter alia, misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (DUTSA).

Case Information

Montway LLC v. Navi Transport Services LLC, No. 25-cv-00381, 2025 WL 3151403 (D. Del. Nov. 11, 2025)

Plaintiffs: Montway LLC and MDG EOOD

Defendants: Navi Transport Services, LLC, Ivan Karakostov, Radion Tzakov

Judge: Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation.

Analysis and Outcome

The court denied Navi’s, Karakostov’s, and Tzakov’s motion to dismiss with respect to Montway’s DTSA claim in part.

The court held that Montway plausibly alleged protectable trade secrets in the identities and contact information of its potential customers, but not in its price quotes. This is because Montway reasonably maintained the secrecy of its customer identities and contact information by training employees on confidentiality, maintaining internal confidentiality policies and procedures, and imposing electronic safeguards to limit access. By contrast, Montway’s quotes were not kept secret. Once accepted, the quotes were functionally public via the load board, even if customer identities were withheld. And Montway’s customer information gained value from its secrecy because, otherwise, competitors could use the information to submit cheaper quotes and undercut the broker, destroying the broker’s first‑mover advantage.

As to misappropriation, the complaint adequately alleged that Navi used Montway’s trade secrets without consent and acquired them through improper means, namely by inducing or receiving confidential lead and contact information from current Montway employees who owed a duty of confidentiality. Although the allegations were circumstantial, the court emphasized that pleading misappropriation through circumstantial evidence is permissible where there are sufficient “plus factors” making misappropriation plausible rather than speculative. The complaint alleged several such factors.

• Navi’s negligible web presence relative to Montway.

• The timing pattern in which Navi posted ostensibly identical jobs at lower prices before Montway’s prospects accepted Montway’s quotes.

• AA customer review indicating that Navi “solicited” business, consistent with unsolicited outreach rather than inbound inquiries.

Taken together, these facts plausibly supported the inference that Navi was using Montway’s confidential lead information to target and undercut Montway’s prospects.

Accordingly, the court denied dismissal of the DTSA claim against Navi, but only to the extent the asserted trade secrets are the identities and contact information of Montway’s potential customers. Additionally, the court denied the motion with respect to Montway’s DTSA claim against Karakostov and Tzakov personally because allegations reflect that they were personally responsible for obtaining Montway’s trade secrets and because they knew Navi’s leads were gained through improper means. The court dismissed any DTSA theory premised on Montway’s quotes themselves.

The court, however, dismissed Montway’s DUTSA claim against the defendants without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege that misappropriation occurred “in” Delaware. Based on the pleaded facts, the relevant conduct occurred in Bulgaria or possibly Illinois, but not Delaware. The court permitted Montway to amend its complaint to add more facts to support the DUTSA claim.