Ely (P) made and sold safes with explosive chambers in them that were designed to protect against burglars. P had letters patent which held this feature as one of their distinctive features. The public had come to recognize the value of an explosive chamber because of P's efforts. P alleged that D infringed upon its patent and further that D sold safes without an explosive chamber and falsely told customers that a band around the door of its safes was used to cover and close an explosion chamber. P alleged that customers had been led to buy safes from D based on this misrepresentation. All the safes were clearly marked as D’s product. P asked for an injunction against D selling safes with the metal bands and against representing that the safes contained an explosion chamber. The case was dismissed, and P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.