business of his former employer. The court therefore ordered him to pay damages.1

The former head cutter of a dressmaking establishment in Ghent opened a rival establishment and announced this opening by means of circulars containing the following reference:

Having been for many years employed as head cutter in several large towns, and in the last place Au Louvre, in Ghent, where I remained nearly five years, the skill of which I have given proof makes me hope that the ladies will not hesitate to honor me with their confidence.

The court held for the former employer who brought suit on the ground that defendant, by circulating this announcement, had tried to solicit the customers of the plaintiff. The court said in part:

The reference to the fact of being a former employee of a competing firm always has for its aim to profit by a reputation to which the former employee has no right, and often for the sole reason of being a means of diverting the clientele, especially when the competition is established in the same locality. On every hypothesis this reference is unlawful when addressed to the customers of a former patron.

A person had the exclusive selling agency for a Dutch fashion journal in Belgium. During the 13 years covered by this arrangement this person was known in Belgium as the publisher of the journal. Before the termination of this arrangement the true publisher announced in the journal that he was the real owner. He also procured from an ex-employee of the agent a list of subscribers of the journal in Belgium. The court held this to be an act of unfair competition against the agent. A countersuit was brought in this case by the publisher against the former agent for sending out a circular to the subscribers soliciting subscriptions to a new journal of similar character, in which it was stated that for the same price they would obtain a subscription lasting twice as long. The court held that this act constituted unfair competition against the publisher.3

Enticing employees.-According to Belgian law, it is permissible for a competitor to hire the employees of his rival, even by the offer of advantages, higher wages, etc., and also permissible for the employees of one employer to leave him and enter into the service of a competitor, providing there is no agreement to the contrary. The hiring of a competitor's employees constitutes an act of unfair competition, however, when it has for its aim and effect to disorganize the services of a competitor or to find out his secrets of manufacture

1 Trib. comm. Bruxelles (1re ch.), 30 janv. 1908, Société M. c. Société 0. et associés; La Jurisprudence Commerciale de Bruxelles, 1908, p. 153.

2 Trib. comm. de Gand (1re ch.), 30 juin 1906, Ledant c. Lefebvre; Pasicrisie Belge, 1907, III, p. 164.

Trib. comm. Bruxelles, 15 nov., 1906, Schepens et Cie. c. Sythoff et Meeuwissen: La Jurisprudence Commerciale de Bruxelles, 1907, p. 8.

or of commerce.1

A few cases will illustrate the attitude of the courts regarding this practice.

A manufacturer brought suit against a competitor for hiring some of his agents. After stating the general principles involved in such cases, the court said:

These principles do not go as far as to permit a manufacturer to attract to himself the agents of a competitor for the purpose either of finding out the secrets of the latter or of disorganizing his services and thus suppressing or weakening his free competition. Such acts are contrary to commercial honesty, and in every case constitute a fraud or, at least, a wrong, reparation for which is due to the one who finds himself the victim thereof.

A competitor of a certain manufacturer succeeded by means of gifts and promises in hiring several of the latter's employees who, it was claimed, were engaged in industrial processes requiring special skill. The court held that neither the act of hiring these workmen. nor the act of making them gifts and promises could be regarded as unfair. It was not shown that the defendant sought to secure the secrets of manufacture or the special processes of the plaintiff; and as the defendant might have been prompted by legitimate motives, such as the desire to secure the services of more skilled or intelligent workmen, the court dismissed the suit.3

A proprietor of a ladies' tailoring establishment employed the forewoman and three working women of a competitor and, with their assistance, copied patterns of gowns which the competitor had bought at a Parisian shop. It was shown that the forewoman had been dismissed by plaintiff, and that the three working women had followed the forewoman without any solicitation from defendant; also that the designs were not of such an original character that they could not have been procured elsewhere, having been reproduced in certain publications. The court held that the acts of defendant did not constitute unfair competition against the plaintiff.*

Section 5. Italy.

INTRODUCTORY.-The adjudication of cases of unfair competition in Italy follows in general the French system. Certain practices are forbidden by provisions of the Penal Code or of special laws relating to patents, trade-marks, etc., while other practices furnish ground for a civil action for an injunction or damages under section 1151 of the Civil Code.

1 Pasicrisie Belge, 1907, III, p. 232.

Trib. comm. Bruxelles (1re ch.), 4 juill. 1898, Société Anonyme Manufacture de Biscuits Parein" c. Société Anonyme "Victoria"; Pasicrisie Belge, 1898, III. p. 295. Trib. comm. d'Anvers (3 ch.), 27 juin 1899, Société anonyme pour l'exploitation de la machine à découper le bois c. La Société anonyme l'Aigle; Jurisprudence du Port d'Anvers, 1899, I. p. 361.

Trib. comm. Bruxelles, 25 octobre 1912, Bargeaud c. H.; La Jurisprudence Commerciale de Bruxelles, 1913. 9. 59.

Italy has not as yet enacted a special law against unfair competition, although such a law has been drafted and recommended by a commission called the "Royal commission for the study and proposal of reforms of the present Italian legislation concerning industrial property," which was created by a royal decree of October 8, 1906,3 PENAL CODE.-Section 163 of the Penal Code forbids the disclosure of secrets which cause injury. It reads as follows:

SEC. 163. Whoever by reason of his rank, office, profession, or trade gains knowledge of a secret, the publication of which may cause injury to another. and publishes the same without just cause, shall be punished with imprisonment not to exceed one month or with a fine of from 50 to 1,000 lire. If injury results, the penalty shall not be less than 300 lire.

Section 295 forbids the fraudulent substitution of one article for another.

SEC. 295. Whoever in the exercise of his own business deceives a purchaser by delivering to him one article instead of another, or an article different as regards origin, quality, or quantity from that shown or bargained for, shall be punished with imprisonment not to exceed six months or with a penalty of from 50 to 3,000 lire. If the fraud relates to precious objects, the penalty shall be imprisonment from 3 to 18 months or a fine not less than 500 lire.

Sections 296 and 297 relate to the reproduction or misappropriation of marks used to distinguish the products of another.

ART. 296. Whoever counterfeits or alters the names, marks, or distinctive signs of the works of skill or of the products of any industry whatever, or who makes use of such names, marks, or signs, even though counterfeited or altered by another, is punished by imprisonment of from one month to two years and with a fine of from 50 to 5,000 lire.

Whoever counterfeits or alters industrial designs or models or makes use of such designs or models, even though counterfeited or altered by another, is subject to the same penalty.

The magistrate may order that the sentence of condemnation be inserted in a newspaper, designated by him, at the expense of the condemned.

ART. 297. Whoever, in order to carry on trade therewith, imports into the State, offers for sale, or in any other manner puts into circulation works of skill or products of any industry whatever, with names, marks, or distinctive signs counterfeited or altered, or with names, marks, or distinctive signs apt to deceive the purchaser with regard to the origin or quality of the work or product is punished with imprisonment of from one month to two years and with a fine of from 50 to 5,000 lire.

LAW OF AUGUST 30, 1868.-The law of August 30, 1868,2 relative to trade-marks and other distinguishing marks prohibits in section 5 the misappropriation and misuse of certain business designations, as follows:

SEC. 5. In addition to the general prohibition against usurping the name or the signature of a company or individual, it is also forbidden to appropriate

1 Atti della Commissione reale, ecc., Vol. II, Roma, 1911, p. 575; cited in Il Diritto Commerciale, 1912, I, p. 452, and III, p. 47.

Legge, 30 agosto 1868, n. 4577, concernente 1 motele i segni distintivi di fabbrica.

the commercial name or the sign of the business, the characteristic emblem, the name, or title of an association, or juristic person, either foreign or national, and to place them upon shops, industrial or commercial products, or on designs, engravings, or other works of art; even if the firm name, sign, emblem, name, or title aforesaid does not constitute part of a trade-mark or distinctive sign or should not be registered in accordance with the present law.

The court held that a certain firm which used the name "Princesse" for corsets was liable for damages to the firm Rosenthal, Fleischer & Co., who had previously acquired the trade-mark “R. F. C. à la Princesse " for a similar article, the act having been maliciously committed.1

Article 12 prohibits (1) the counterfeiting of trade-marks or other distinguishing signs, (2) the fraudulent imitation of trade-marks and other distinguishing signs, and (3) the sale or offer for sale of goods bearing counterfeit or fraudulently imitated trade-marks, signs, etc. The language of this section is as follows:

ART. 12. He shall be punished with a fine of not more than 2,000 lire even if there is no damage to a third party:

1. Who shall have counterfeited a trade-mark or distinctive sign or who shall have wittingly made use thereof;

2. Who shall have wittingly placed in circulation, sold or imported from a foreign country, and for commercial use, products with counterfeit marks; 3. Who shall have contravened the provisions of articles 3, 5, and 6 of the present law;

4. Who, without having actually counterfeited a trade-mark or distinctive sign, shall have made a fraudulent imitation of one, or who shall have wittingly made use of a fraudulently imitated trade-mark or sign;

5. Who shall have wittingly placed in circulation, sold, or imported from a foreign country, and for commercial use, products with a fraudulently imitated trade-mark or sign;

6. Who shall have wittingly made use of a trade-mark or sign, insignia or emblem bearing an indication apt to deceive the purchaser as to the nature of the product or who shall have sold products provided with such trade-marks, signs, or emblems.

In case of second offense, the fine shall be not more than 4,000 lire.

The trade-marks or signs counterfeited, the instruments which have served in the fraud, and not merely the products and objects accredited with such counterfeiting, shall be confiscated.

The trade-marks or signs, insignia, or emblems altered shall be restored at the expense of the offender.

These penalties are applicable without prejudice to indemnification for damages with regard to him who justly demands them and to those greater penalties which are established by the Penal Code for the case of falsification.

LAW OF OCTOBER 30, 1859.-Section 8 of the law of October 30, 1859, relating to patent rights, provides that the patent on a new article comprises the exclusive right of manufacture and sale of the

1 Corte di Cassazione, Torino, 18 novembre 1909, Mantovani e. C. c. Rosenthal, Fleischer & Co.; II Filangleri, 1910, p. 121.

23731 Regio Decreto: inserto nella Gazz. Piem, del 3 dicembre, 1859, modificazione alla Legge sulle privative industriali del 30 ottobre 1859.

article. This provision appears to make it allowable for manufacturers of patented articles to fix the resale price and other conditions of sale. Under such circumstances the cutting of the price of patented articles fixed by the manufacturer appears to be regarded as unfair competition.

The appellate court of Torino declared it to constitute unfair competition according to section 8 of the patent law to buy goods, manufactured and patented in Italy, in a foreign country and to resell them in Italy at a lower price than that fixed by the holder of the patent or by the sole selling agent.1

CIVIL CODE.-Article 1151 of the Italian Civil Code contains a general provision of law applicable to cases of unfair competition similar to that found in article 1382 of the French Civil Code. The language of this article is as follows:

ART. 1151. Every act of a person which causes damage to another, obliges him by whose fault the damage has been caused to compensate for said damage.

As a result of the interpretation of this provision, its application is practically limited to cases where deceit or an unlawful act on the part of the offender can be shown.

Article 1151 of the Civil Code is supplemented by article 1152, which provides that every person is responsible for the damage caused not only by his own acts, but as a result of his negligence or imprudence, and also by article 1153, which provides that every person is equally liable for injuries resulting from his own acts and for injuries resulting from the acts of persons for whom he is responsible or of chattels in his custody.

The following cases illustrate the application of article 1151 to unfair competitive practices:

Enticing customers.-The practise of drawing prospective purchasers away from a competitor was held to constitute unfair competition by a Venice court. A novelty dealer, who had placed a runner in front of a competitor's shop to coax buyers away and into his own shop, was held liable for damages in an action charging unfair competition under section 1151 of the Civil Code. The court said:

As long as one of these runners, of whom the house of Pauly speaks, stands in the neighborhood of a shop in the public street, even placing himself at a show window, and remains in a purely contemplative attitude, it may be spoken of as annoyance, but not as direct offence. On the contrary, there is damage when the runner becomes active and seeks to turn the customers aside, whether by treating with them directly or by treating with the persons who accompany them.

1 Corte d'appello, Torino, 15 maggio 1912, Consorzio Agrario Cooperativo di Torino e Martin Cultivator Co.: Mon. d. Trib., 1912, p. 936.

2 Ramella, Trattato della Proprietà Industriale, 1909. II, p. 372.

2 Trib. di Venezia, 14 aprile 1904.

Societa Salviati Jesurum e. Ditta Pauly e C.

Rivista di Dir. Com., 1904, II, p. 468.