Paragon Technologies, Inc. “Paragon” appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to InfoSmart Technologies, Inc. “InfoSmart” in this case involving a restrictive covenant. Paragon asserts that the trial court erred by finding the restrictive covenant unenforceable as a matter of law. We disagree and affirm. Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Cit.” Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997.
So viewed, the record shows that InfoSmart and Paragon entered into an independent contractor agreement pursuant to which InfoSmart agreed to provide employees for staffing in the information technology industry to the Georgia Technology Authority “GTA”, a client of Paragon. The contract included the following restrictive covenant: Contractor InfoSmart acknowledges that Company Paragon has a business relationship with Client it wishes to protect. Therefore, Contractor and its employees and agents agree that it will not interfere with Company’s ongoing business relationship with its Client and will not accept directly or indirectly an offer to provide further services to that Client, either individually or through another company during the project described on attachment and for a period of twelve 12 months following completion of the project or other termination of the project, regardless of the reason. The contract did not contain any covenant restricting Paragon’s business activities. It also provided that Paragon would own all intellectual property “required to be delivered and/or purchased and/or created under this Agreement” and included an indemnity and hold harmless agreement in Paragon’s favor. The four-page preprinted contract listed Paragon’s name, address, telephone numbers, and web address on each page. Above the signature line for the parties, Paragon Technologies, Inc. was preprinted, while “Contractor” was preprinted above the signature line where “InfoSmart Technologies, Inc.” was handwritten in the blank space.
