## Facts

- Thomas A. Edison, widely known as an inventor, previously developed a topical pain-relief preparation he called “Polyform.”
- In 1879, Edison agreed to sell rights connected to Polyform to third parties for $5,000 and executed a written assignment of his rights in the preparation; a contemplated patent did not issue.
- Successor entities were formed to manufacture and sell Polyform; the earlier companies achieved little success.
- In 1893, Edison Polyform Manufacturing Company (a New Jersey corporation operating in Chicago) began making and selling Polyform.
- Edison had no ownership interest in the defendant corporation and did not authorize the use of his name or likeness in its corporate title or marketing.
- The defendant used “Edison” in its corporate name and, in advertising and labels, used Edison’s name and picture and circulated a purported certificate implying Edison’s connection with or approval of the product.
- Edison filed an equity action seeking an injunction to stop the defendant from using “Edison” in its corporate title and business advertising.
- Although there was some delay in prosecution due to the death of Edison’s solicitor, the court treated the case as presenting no laches bar and decided it on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether a well-known individual may obtain injunctive relief to stop a corporation from using his name and likeness, and a fabricated endorsement, to imply sponsorship or approval of a product, even if the individual is not a direct business competitor and previously assigned rights in the underlying product.

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery granted a decree for Edison and issued an injunction.
- The court restrained the defendant from using “Edison” as part of its corporate title and from using Edison’s name, picture, or a purported certificate in connection with its business or advertisements in a way that suggested Edison’s endorsement or affiliation.
- The court rejected the argument that relief required direct commercial competition between Edison and the defendant.
- The court distinguished Edison’s earlier assignment of rights in the preparation from any claimed right to exploit Edison’s personal identity to market the product.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may enjoin unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name and likeness when used to misrepresent endorsement or connection and to trade on the person’s reputation.
- Direct competition is not a necessary condition for relief where the gravamen is deceptive exploitation of another’s identity and the resulting risk of reputational injury and public deception.
- An assignment of rights in a product or preparation does not, without clear authorization, convey the right to use the assignor’s personal name, portrait, or purported testimonial as advertising matter or as part of a corporate title.
- Courts may consider both harm to the individual’s reputation and the misleading of consumers when assessing whether to grant injunctive relief against false endorsement.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined the corporation’s use of Edison’s name, likeness, and a purported endorsement because the use falsely implied Edison’s affiliation and improperly traded on his reputation, and the lack of direct competition and the earlier assignment of product rights did not authorize such identity-based marketing.


Edison v. Edison Polyform Mfg. Co., 73 N.J. Eq. 136, 67 A. 392 (N.J. Ch. 1907)