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 has come to recognize the value of an explosive chamber because of P's efforts. P alleged that D has infringed upon its patent and further that D has sold safes without an explosive chamber and has falsely told customers that a band around the door of its safes was used to cover and close an explosion chamber. P alleges that customers have been led to buy safes from D based on this misrepresentation. P asked for an injunction against selling safes with the metal bands and against representing that the safes contained an explosion chamber. The case was dismissed, and P appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.