A manufacturer of cigarette paper affixed to his wall a poster in which he announced:

* * *

The name of my paper (Guerre à Job) indicates that it is by no means an imitation of the "Job" paper that I attempt to-day and that I desire fairly to compete with it. I am, then, far from having the thought of adding another name to the already lengthy list of those who have sought to imitate the paper of M. Bardou. On the contrary, I demand only that my paper be not confused with his. The real superiority of my paper, generally recognized, gives me assurance that my brand "Guerre à Job" will soon be preferred by all amateurs. * * * It is the real merit of the paper that must be sought for and will be found in my new brand, which shall soon be known to all as the best product that exists.

The court held it to be an act of unfair competition for a merchant in his advertisements and prospectuses to mention a competitor and his products with the intent to disparage them, and enjoined defendant from a further use of the word "Job."1

A proprietor of a café in Paris by the name of Maumus posted the notice in large letters: "The Café of Maumus does not serve Byrrh." The exclusive proprietor of the brand "Byrrh" brought suit for damages. The court held that Maumus had acted in good faith and within his rights in informing the public that he did not serve this drink. Upon appeal this decision was affirmed. The court of appeals said, in part:

It is certain that Maumus only made use of an incontestable right, that of not selling any byrrh and of informing his customers to that effect. The normal exercise of this right could not be legally injurious (to plaintiff) since it must be admitted that aside from the conspicuous notice, no unlawful facts could be set forth, such as malicious remarks, utterances, acts, or writings of a nature to usurp or depreciate the product known under the commercial name of byrrh.

A manufacturer inserted in a circular letter the statement that the superphosphates which he offered to the public were the only ones which were absolutely perfect in respect to certain qualities, such as fineness, freedom from moisture, etc. No criticism, however, was made of the products of other manufacturers. The court held that it was not unfair competition for a person to proclaim his goods as the best in the world and much superior to similar goods, so long as he makes no mention nor criticism of the products of rival and com. peting houses.3

A periodical offered to sell to subscribers as a premium a certain make of gun for 85 francs, which, it stated, was equal in value to those sold by the dealers for 125 francs. One of the dealers then announced in the papers and by placards and circulars that he had always sold for 78 francs the same guns offered as a premium by the

1 Paris, 23 avril 1869, Sabatou c. Bardou; Dalloz, op. cit., 1870, II, p. 75.

2 Pau, 18 juin 1897, Lambert-Violet c. Maumus; Dalloz, op. cit., 1897, II, pp. 335, 336. Toulouse, 18 janv. 1906, Organ c. Compagnie Bordelaise; Annales 1907, II, p. 2.

periodical for 85 francs. Suit was brought by the manager of the periodical to recover damages on the ground that the statement circulated by the defendant was an act of unfair competition. The statement appears to have been true. The court, however, held that, by clearly giving the impression that instead of being a concession in price the offer of the plaintiff was only a lure and a source of profit to him, the defendant had committed an act of unfair competition. Damages were, therefore, awarded.1

PRICE CUTTING.-In general a retailer in France has the right to sell his goods at any price he chooses, and even at a loss, unless he has entered into an agreement to the contrary. When, however, price cutting takes place under such conditions as to show a clear intention to disparage or depreciate the value of another's goods it may constitute unfair competition."

Agreements to maintain fixed resale prices are regarded in France as legal and binding, and the merchant who cuts the resale price after entering into such an agreement is held to have committed an unlawful act, as well as an act of unfair competition, against those of his competitors who keep their agreements. Such agreements to maintain resale prices are binding only upon the parties to the agreement. A manufacturer or distributer, except as noted above, has no ground for action against a merchant who cuts prices if he has not entered into a contract to maintain them.3

The following cases will illustrate these principles:

Defendants offered to sell some tooth wash below cost. The manufacturers brought suit against them on the ground that the cut in price and the announcement of it was an act of unfair competition of a nature to depreciate their product. In rejecting this contention the court stated the principle applying to such cases as follows:

One can not contest the right of a purchaser to advertise and resell at whatsoever price he chooses the merchandise which he has purchased and paid for when the seller has made no reservation which would take away this privilege from him.

A dealer in perfumery entered into an agreement with the manufacturer not to sell nor allow to be sold nor mark or catalogue the products of the latter at prices below those fixed as the minimum. Failing to keep this agreement the dealer was sued for breach of contract. The court sustained the right of the manufacturer to sell his goods subject to such conditions as he might impose upon the purchaser.5

1 Besançon, 24 nov. 1880, Damelit c. Moulin; Annales 1882, p. 258.

2 Pouillet, op. cit., p. 988; Allart, op. cit., p. 221; Pandectes Françaises, tome 20, p. 78. See Annales 1910, I, pp. 71–73.

4 Paris, 2 déc. 1869, Lamoureux et Chouet c. Calame et Fleck; Annales 1870, p. 60.

5 Trib. comm. de Rouen, 17 janv., 1906, Javal et Parquet c. Brunschwig; Annales 1906,

The Société des Eaux minérales de Vittel distributed to the trade a circular, as follows:

We have the honor to inform you that we have regulated the sale of our Vittel waters * * at a minimum price of 70 centimes per bottle for sale

to the public.

We have joined the regulative union for this purpose, and that no one may plead ignorance have placed on our own label the stamp of this union, which from now on will be accompanied with the following notice: "The stamp in the margin imposes upon the seller the obligation to conform with the fixed minimum price."

We place thus upon our waters, as it is our strict right, an obligation which we intend henceforth to enforce upon all resellers without exception.

In consequence the act of buying our Vittel waters and reselling the same to the public constitutes for the seller an absolute obligation of not selling to the public at less than 70 centimes per bottle.

The society brought suit against a certain Brunet for selling below the fixed price. It was proved that Brunet bought the bottles not from the plaintiff but from a dealer who had not imposed any obligation upon Brunet regarding a minimum resale price. The court refused to consider the notice on the label as binding upon dealers to maintain the price noted thereon, and accordingly held that since no contract existed between the parties Brunet was free to resell his goods at prices that suited him.1

DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING.-In France every merchant has the right to attract custom by advertising his goods. Such an act constitutes unfair competition only when the announcements contain misleading statements which are intended to deceive the public and thus by fraud to divert customers from competing establishments. The following cases illustrate the principles established by the courts:

A merchant opened in a city a store for the sale of ready-made clothing, and by means of posters, newspaper advertisements, and prospectuses announced that the goods put on sale came from a burned warehouse and were sold for the account of the insurance company at from 50 to 80 per cent reductions, when in fact the goods had not been in a fire and were not sold at a cheap price or loss, but only at their real value. Suit was brought by a competing firm of merchant tailors. The court held that the merchant had knowingly deceived the public in order to acquire the clientele of his rivals, that the acts exceeded the limits of permissible advertising and constituted unlawful, misleading, and fraudulent tactics, such as are characteristic of unfair competition. Damages were awarded and judgment was affirmed upon appeal.3

1 Trib. comm. Seine, 13 nov. 1909, Société des Eaux minerales de Vittel c. Brunet; Annales 1910, I, 77.

2 Pandectes Françaises, tome 20, p. 70.

3 Orléans, 29 mars, 1889, Beauvois, dit Demonchaux c. Chollet et Courel; Sirey, Recueil Général des Lois et des Arrêts, 1889, II, p. 93.

Two merchants announced the sale of a bankrupt stock as comprising 500,000 francs' worth of merchandise, which, as liquidators, they were selling at 75 per cent loss, when, in fact, they had purchased less than 12,000 francs' worth of goods from the bankrupt stock of another and were selling the goods at little less than real value. A competing concern brought suit. The court held such an act to be unfair competition, and ordered the defendants to omit the misleading statements from their announcements.1

By agreement a merchant, Lévy, took over the business of Tarnaud, a dealer in novelties at Tours, who had been declared bankrupt. He then announced in the papers that on a given date the large stock would be liquidated with enormous reductions, imitating the usual manner of advertising liquidation sales. By other means also he led the public to believe that he was selling out the business instead of continuing it, and that the sale was a forced sale of the particular stock, when, as a matter of fact, he added considerable quantities of goods from other sources to the pretended bankrupt stock. The court declared that this was unfair competition, and awarded damages to two competitors in the town who had been injured by the diverting of their customers.2

USURPATION OF TITLES.-The use by merchants of certain qualifications or titles which they think might recommend their establishments or their products to the public is, in general, permissible in France, but the unauthorized or fraudulent use of such designations to create a favorable impression in the minds of the public is held by the courts to constitute unfair competition against honest merchants. The most common acts of an unfair kind are those in which merchants falsely claim to be the former pupil, former employee, or former associate of a well-known house; also those in which persons falsely announce themselves to be the depositaries or sole depositaries of certain goods, or manufacturers announce falsely that they are the only manufacturers of certain goods or that their goods are the only ones receiving an award at a certain exposition.3 The use of such titles as former pupil, ex-employee, etc., in a manner to create confusion between two establishments, is always regarded as unfair competition, affording ground for a civil action. (see p. 572); but there is still a wide difference of opinion as to whether the bona fide use of such titles can constitute unfair competition.*

The misappropriation or misuse of awards of expositions and other honorific distinctions of the same character is made a penal offense under the law of 1912 (see p. 568).

1 Trib. comm. de Rouen, 4 juin 1877, Lévy, Jacob et Legrand c. Francfort et Kahn; Annales 1877, p. 258.

Orléans, 9 déc., 1891, Lévy c. Saintin et Flisseau; Sirey, op. cit., 1892, II, p. 202. 3 Pandectes Françaises, tome 20, pp. 71, 79.

4 Pouillet, op. cit., pp. 851, 852.

A few cases involving the false assumption of titles follow: A book dealer in Châlon-sur-Saône announced in a newspaper that he was the sole dealer handling a certain publication. Another book dealer in the same city, who handled this publication, brought suit for damages. The publisher testified that he had no sole depositary in that city. The court held therefore that the other book dealers had just cause for action against the defendant.1

The act of a merchant in distributing to the public some prospectuses of a certain house, after having them marked with his stamp, with the intention of making the clientele believe that he was the depositary of this house when in fact he was not, was held by the court to be unfair competition.2

A horticulturist claimed to be the sole producer of Argenteuil asparagus in a certain locality, when in fact there was another who for a long time had been engaged in growing this same kind of vegetable. The tribunal ordered the suppression of the word "sole” in the prospectuses, announcements, invoices, letterheads, etc.3

A clothing manufacturer opened an establishment at Blois under the trade name "A la Belle Jardinière," which was the name of a well-known house in Paris, but he took care to add to this designation his own name as well as the name of the place in which he was located, so that confusion between the two concerns in violation of the law of 1824 was impossible. He had, however, placed a sign in large letters in his display rooms located just across the street from his main establishment, which read "Branch of la Belle Jardinière," while on the show window in very small letters was placed the notice, The entrance of the store is opposite." He had also distributed cards and inserted advertisements in the newspapers so worded as to convey the impression that his shop was a branch of the Paris concern. The court held such acts to be of a nature to cause injury to the Paris house and ordered the defendant to discontinue the use of the word "branch."4

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A COMPETITOR.-Favoring a person to the detriment of his competitors may constitute an act of unfair competition according to French law. A common form of such discrimination is to omit or obscure the name of a competitor in a general directory or publication of similar nature which purports to give all the concerns engaged in a given line of business. Another practice of similar nature is to place a person's advertisement in a more favorable

1 Dijon, 13 août 1860, Mulcey c. Boyer; Annales 1861, p. 25.

2 Nancy, 20 avril 1899, Soc. la Française; cited by Pouillet, op. cit., p. 809.

3 Paris, 14 déc. 1888, Lhérault c. Lebeuf; Annales 1891, p. 262.

Cass. civ., 17 janv., 1894, Bessand, Blanchard, Rochard et Cie. c. Godard; Sirey, op. cit., 1894, I, p. 433.