View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 289 U.S. 756 53 S. Ct. 787 77 L. Ed. 1500 1933 U.S.
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff had a patent on explosive chambers in safes designed to protect against burglars. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant infringed upon its patent. Plaintiff sued Defendant for unfair competition.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A loss of business must be shown in a suit for unfair competition.
Issue. Must a loss of business be shown in a suit for unfair competition?
Held. Yes. Judgment for Defendant. Decree reversed.
* There is nothing to show that if Defendant had told the truth or that customers had known of the fact that Defendant’s safes did not have an explosive chamber, they would have gone to Plaintiff to purchase a safe. Defendant has asserted that there are other safes that have explosive chambers besides that for which Plaintiff has a patent.
Discussion. A loss of business must be shown in a suit for unfair competit