Mosler Safe Company v. Ely-Norris Safe Company
273 U.S. 132 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action for unfair competition based on a competitor's false advertising about its own product unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a direct loss of sales, which is not possible if the plaintiff is not the sole source of the product with the advertised feature.
Facts:
- Mosler Safe Co. manufactures and sells safes containing a patented explosion chamber for protection against burglars.
- Ely-Norris Safe Co. manufactures and sells safes that feature a metal band around the door in the same location as Mosler's explosion chamber.
- Ely-Norris represents to the public that this metal band covers an explosion chamber.
- In some cases, the safes sold by Ely-Norris with this representation do not actually contain an explosion chamber.
- Mosler Safe Co. is not the only manufacturer of safes that contain explosion chambers; other competitors exist in the market.
- Ely-Norris clearly marks its safes with its own name and address, and does not represent its safes as being made by Mosler.
Procedural Posture:
- Mosler Safe Co. filed a bill in equity against Ely-Norris Safe Co. in the U.S. District Court, alleging unfair competition.
- The District Court dismissed the case, holding that the alleged false representations did not give rise to a private cause of action.
- Mosler Safe Co., as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decree, finding that Mosler had a valid case.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to Ely-Norris Safe Co. to resolve a conflict between the Circuit Courts of Appeals on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a manufacturer have a private cause of action for unfair competition when a competitor falsely represents that its products contain a specific feature, if the manufacturer is not the sole producer of products with that feature?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No. A claim for unfair competition based on a competitor's misrepresentation requires the plaintiff to show a direct loss of sales, which cannot be established here. Mosler's complaint fails because it does not allege that it is the sole manufacturer of safes with explosion chambers. Therefore, even if a customer was deceived by Ely-Norris's false claims, there is no evidence to suggest that the customer, upon learning the truth, would have purchased a safe from Mosler rather than from any of the other competitors in the market. Without the ability to prove that the defendant's falsehood directly diverted sales that would have gone to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no foundation for a claim of damages and thus no private right to sue for the deception.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of private actions for false advertising under the doctrine of unfair competition. It establishes a strict standing requirement, mandating that a private plaintiff must demonstrate direct and particular injury, not merely that a competitor is deceiving the public at large. By rejecting the idea that a single competitor can act as a 'vicarious avenger' for the public's deception, the ruling forces plaintiffs to prove specific causation—that the defendant's lie directly diverted customers who would have otherwise bought from the plaintiff. This makes such lawsuits far more difficult for plaintiffs who are not monopolists or the sole source of a particular product feature.
Unlock the full brief for Mosler Safe Company v. Ely-Norris Safe Company