Toni Castano Jan 31, 2013:

Strange wording What really puzzles me is the expression "against myself". How is that possible? If you are the owner of the info how can you be entitled to an injunction "against yourself"? What for? It seems contradictory. Hence, my first reading was to see there "against actions conducted against myself", but I now discard this option. I tend to think that "myself" comprises any employee of the company involved in the agreement, not the owner in person, but a person who is a member of the disclosing party (the undersigned!) and acts against the purpose of the agreement. Just my impression, I´m not sure.

Margarita Ezquerra (Smart Translators, S.L.) Jan 31, 2013:

Hola Elizabeth, Está redactado un tanto extraño, pero aquí va lo que interpreto: Creo que se refiere a que él/ella, como propietaria (en este caso sería la parte demandante), tendrá derecho a recibir (de la parte demandada), remuneración por todos los gastos ocasionados como consecuencia de la solicitud de un interdicto preliminar o permanente, además de todos los gastos relacionados con los honorarios y costas de los abogados, los suyos personales y por cualquier otra solución llevada a cabo, permitida por ley.

Elizabeth Ardans (asker) Jan 31, 2013:

My doubt isn't really how to translate the word injunction, but what do they mean by "injunction against myself", I don't really grasp the idea. What do they want to accomplish? Thanks!