I Salet 2000 DLS 17 TS VIS 11 € permissive and was against good HTS 11 10 1 sprsening dose finding the practice of STRE STOL TAGS TO RECTE SUA ALIst the lefen hat associa21 mer sepens I a. le të te le d14% an unfair compeched the defendants from publishing the Dilnes të dhe zeescherme pe covers and fire stating that this pra de lễ gag rebus vas mivel tiling that such acts VOld be sepulan a god nes mi a vilation of section 1. Toon 1200 the Zugemal (van därmed this view. It also stated tha seo a lè vas 106 2700mole n this me, because the plaintiff ET DURS TOH MOHOL pero es The following cases illustrate

Defealiza's &ore vis leted ross the street from the store of waste dårlant's husband followed two

pers as who were e In the direction of the other store and bolowed them to visit kien land's store. On another occasion an employee of leelant Deriluted handrills to persons going to the plaintiff's st re, which outured statements landatory of defendant's insiness. Most of these Lan Ps were distributed directly in front of plaintiff's show win lows and entrance. The employee distributing them even a visel persons not to patronize plaintiff, but to go to defendant's store, where they could buy more cheaply. Suit was brought under section 1 of the law of 1909. The court held that these acts exceeded permissible competition and enjoined defendant from such practices.

The former agents of an insurance company sent a circular letter to the policyholders of this company advising them to cancel their policies and take out new policies with them. The policyholders were asked to forward the notices of cancellation to the former agents and were supplied with envelopes for this purpose. They were also advised that the former agents would call upon them personally for the purpose of taking out the new policies. Action was brought under section 1 of the law of 1909. The court held that it was repugnant to good morals for the defendants to thus solicit the policyholders of the plaintiff company to sever their business connections with it and to establish business connections with them; that defendants had attempted systematically to entice a whole group of customers, and, furthermore, by requesting the policyholders to mail them the notice

1 Relchsgericht, Urt. v. 3. Mai 1912; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XII, S. 247. Kammergericht, Urt. v. 4. Februar 1911; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd X (1911), S. 220.

of cancellation, had attempted to procure a weapon which they might use at an opportune time to bring pressure to bear upon the plaintiff.1

SUBSIDIZING A STRIKE AGAINST COMPETITORS.-The unlawful acts of strikers may be actionable under section 826 of the Civil Code. If the strike is instigated or subsidized by a competitor, it constitutes an act of unfair competition, which can be prosecuted either under section 826 of the Civil Code or section 1 of the law of 1909, or both. This practice is not covered by any of the special provisions. The following is a typical case (see also p. 262):

A goldbeaters' cartel induced a labor union, which was conducting a strike against two competing concerns not members of the cartel, to continue the strike for a year. The latter concerns brought suit against certain directing members of the cartel under section 826 of the Civil Code. The Imperial Court said in part:

If a business proprietor or a number of them wilfully induce a union of workmen, especially one of such size and influence as the German Metal Workers' Union, to forbid workmen belonging to the union to take employment with a certain employer, and if this happens for the purpose of making the operation of the latter's business impossible or difficult, and thereby eliminates competition, then this act of the proprietors concerned not only is repugnant to the principles by which persons of high mind and fine sense of propriety are guided in business, but it far exceeds that which according to the general public conscience and the moral conceptions of all reasonable and upright thinking persons is permissible in business competition.

COMPELLING EXCLUSIVE PATRONAGE. To injure a competitor by threatening to discriminate against persons patronizing the latter, in order to compel exclusive patronage, is unfair competition.

A steamship company which operated from Hamburg, Bremen, and Antwerp to several Australian ports threatened a large shipper with higher rates than those given in its regular tariff if he continued to patronize a competing group of sailing vessels. The shipper brought action under section 826 of the Civil Code to enjoin the steamship company from discriminating against him. The Imperial Court granted relief, holding that the act of the defendant was repugnant to good morals. The court said in part:

According to the prevailing ideas of propriety and honesty in business the act of a shipping company which excludes an individual or even a certain group of individuals from the general tariff rates announced to the public is an infraction of good morals if it is done for the purpose of unfair competition.

1 Kammergericht, Urt. v. 3. Jan. 1912; Die Rechtsprechung der Oberlandesgerichte, Bd. 25 (1912), S. 341.

Urt. v. 2. Feb. 1905; Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Civilsachen, Bd. 60O, S. 94, 104.

Urt. v. 11. April 1901; Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Civilsachen, Bd. 48, S. 114, 127.

DISLOYALTY OF FORMER EMPLOYEES.-The unfair acts of employees in accepting bribes for giving a competitive advantage to another or in revealing the secrets of commerce and industry, as already noted. are made penal offenses by section 12, second paragraph, and section 17. rst paragraph, respectively of the law of 1909. The second paragraph of section 17 also makes it a penal offense for ex-employees to disclose or utilize trade secrets confided to them or obtained unfairly by them during their employment. Other unfair practices of ex-employees, however, may be ground for civil suits under the general provisions. A case of this kind follows:

A mechanical engineer while employed in a factory acquired knowledge of the construction of a machine. At the conclusion of Lis employment he made use of this information for his own profit, and also hired one of the employees of the factory to help him operate the machine. Suit was brought against him under section 826 of the Civil Code. The Imperial Court held that it was not repugnant to good morals for anyone to make use of the knowledge which he had acquired in the business of another, even if it was a secret of manufacture or trade, unless while employed he secretly and without the consent of his employer made drawings of the machine or committed some other act of similar nature. The court also held that it was not repugnant to good morals to hire the employee of the factory, since it was not shown that there was any breach of contract or other violation of contractual obligations. The court declared, however, that if it was established that the defendant from the beginning proceeded with the idea of competing against the plaintiff and, during his em ployment, through a violation of his contractual obligations, procured the data needed for this purpose, the decision would be justified that his whole course of action was contrary to good morals.1

DISPARAGEMENT.-Cases involving disparaging statements appear to be prosecuted more frequently under section 1 of the law of 1909 and section 826 of the Civil Code than under the special provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the law of 1909. A large number of cases of disparagement are prosecuted annually under these two general provisions. A few examples follow:

Defendant placed two large placards in his store, where they might easily be seen and read by every visitor, as follows:

No business can give away 5 per cent as a present. Trading stamps must always be paid for. A wise buyer, therefore, buys only where no trading stamps are given.

Suit was brought under section 1. The court held that this announcement of the defendant did not, as the defendant claimed, represent simply an opinion, which the one who reads it may or may not

1 Reichsgericht, Urt. v. 29. März 1912; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XII, 8. 404.

www

share. On the contrary, the defendant had made the positive statement of fact that every person who buys in a store that grants trading stamps must pay a higher price than he who buys in a store that does not grant trading stamps. The defendant was also aware that it was impossible to adduce proof of his claim. He had, nevertheless, made his statement, relying upon the gullibility of a part of the public, in order to discredit the trading-stamp stores by passing off a wholly vague statement as an established fact and in exploiting the gullibility of the public. By that means he attempted to draw to himself the customers of the trading-stamp stores. Such a method, amounting to a deception of the public, was held by the Imperial Court to be unfair and repugnant to good morals.1

A person who had obtained a court decision against a competitor for unfair competition published the decision as an advertisement in the newspapers during the Christmas shopping season, several months after the judgment was obtained. The advertisement was set in heavy type, a conspicuous title and a heavy black border, so that it would attract special attention. Suit was brought under section 1 and the court held that the unauthorized publication of the decision at the particular time and in the manner noted was contrary to good morals and therefore a violation of the section invoked.2

Defendant on two occasions published some disparaging statements regarding the product of a competitor. Suit was brought under sections 1 and 14 of the law of 1909 against unfair competition and section 826 of the Civil Code. It was shown that as the statements were true there was no violation of section 14. But the lower court held that under certain circumstances the circulation of true statements might be repugnant to good morals in the sense of section 1, and on this ground enjoined the defendant from publishing certain of the statements. Upon appeal the Imperial Court overruled this view, holding that the circulation of true statements for the purpose of competition was permissible, except under special circumstances, such as when the facts were no longer of interest to the public and such circumstances were not found in this case.3

Brewing interests in attacking the mineral-water manufacturers, who made besides so-called nonalcoholic drinks, published and distributed a pamphlet containing the following statements:

And as for the so-called nonalcoholic drinks, very suspicious chemicals were found therein, in addition to an alcoholic content of as much as 2 per cent— that is, as much as in a light beer-and a customary quite insipid taste. Anilin, to give a very beautiful color, which is always the best in this "hell brew";

1 Reichsgericht, Urt. v. 28. Oktober 1913; Das Recht, 1914, Beilage No. 268.

2 Oberlandesgericht Kiel, Urt. v. 25. März 1913; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XIII, S. 328.

Reichsgericht, Urt. v. 20. März 1914; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XIII, S. 489. 30035°-16-42

The Time-va comes much sit, un ier section 1 if the av DIRDIM of the Girl Cole, to enjoin the

i ure sites (a 2 mail that dey were repug Agnes Telnet wet bild that, while the acts of CONSOLE C78, 302 18 Dee. I cravete these sections, the parkstar Sutements un catel saint le regarded as against good Ducis say the bfolus illes pointing out definite faults, did 3.6 refer to partirlar bizia ban on y carried on the fight against the

i

A Mana: in the elafel Dcontained an article which ceputul de valve of Salsap male in England with German grain soup, and sued in solusi n that the former was no better than the latter bu was noth dearer. Sult was brought by the Enid sown against the eliter and publisher of this almanac, under section 1 of the law of 14an 1 sections $3 and $26 of the Civil Code. The defen lants were alle to prove to the satisfaction of the Imperial Court that the statements contained in the article were true. The court therefore held that the above-mentioned sections were inapplicable.2

IMPLIED DISPARAGEMENT.—The disparagement of a competitor by implication may be unfair competition under certain circumstances. A newspaper publisher printed for advertising purposes a timetable poster, containing also a list of the long-distance telephone subscribers for the district L, from which he intentionally omitted the name and telephone number of his competitor. The court held that the incomplete list, which was intended for use in public places, was of a nature to lead the public to believe that the plaintiff had no telephone connection. This would convey the impression that his business was only of limited importance or not up to date and result in an actual loss of trade. The act of omitting the name of plaintiff was therefore held to be repugnant to good morals in the sense of section 1 of the law of 1909.

DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING. Although this form of unfair competition. is usually prosecuted under sections 3 and 4 of the law of 1909, such cases are sometimes brought under section 1. A few examples follow. A dealer advertised in a Frankfurt a. O. paper that he would sell a coffee mixture at 78 pfennigs per pound. This mixture contained 54 1 Relchsgericht, Urt. v. 7. Feb 1919; Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XII, 8. 520. * Reichsgericht, Urt. v. 26. November 1912, Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XII. 8 217

* Oberlandesgericht Hamm, Urt y la Mars 1912; Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, 1912, 8 8,6