united states district court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania

is to restrain trade or control prices that the covenant will be declared void.” 24
QVC’s affidavits raise issues of material fact regarding the interrelated marketing of
the ornaments and the sweaters and QVC’s interest in protecting its investments, precluding
summary judgment for Starad on this issue.
2. Consideration
Starad next argues that because the sales of ornaments were never governed by non-
compete covenants, new consideration would have been required to make the non-compete valid as
to them. QVC responds that the new consideration was a beneficial change in Starad and Radko’s
relationship with QVC. While Starad disputes that it received any benefits as a result of the
Agreement, QVC’s affidavits describing its dedication of resources to the expansion of the Starad
brand raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of additional consideration. Summary
judgment is therefore denied on this issue.
3. Scope of the Non-Compete
Starad contends that the non-compete is overly broad in both time and geographic
scope. The non-compete lasts for the duration of the Agreement and for one year after termination
of the Agreement. Its first subsection prohibits Starad from promoting the sweaters anywhere in the
United States through any media. The second subsection of the non-compete prohibits Starad from
appearing on any direct response television program anywhere in the United States, to promote “any
goods, services, or products, including without limitation the Products.”
24 Volunteer Firemen’s, 693 A.2d at 1337, n.7; see also Hess v. Gebhard & Co., 808 A.2d 912, 920-21 (Pa.
2002) (“If the covenant is inserted into the agreement for some other purpose, as for example, eliminating or
repressing competition or to keep the employee from competing so that the employer can gain an economic
advantage, the covenant will not be enforced.”).
-13