Advisory opinion letter: it would be permissible for our client to use a similar procedure for its toys using…

Gentlemen:

We have a client that makes toys utilizing what are commonly lnown as “Swiss music boxes”, The actual musical movements were originally imported from Switzerland, and later have been imported from Japan as well as Switzerland. Great care is exercised to clearly indicate on each toy and on the carton for each toy the origin for the particular music unit in that toy.

It has recently come to our attention that another toy manufacturer marks its toys with the statement “Made in Hong Kong or Taiwan”, and this has prompted us to inquire whether it would be permissible for our client to use a similar procedure for its toys using music units from Switzerland or Japan. Would it be acceptable if our client clearly marked both the toys and the cartons for the same with the following notation: “ Musical Movement Made in Switzerland or Japan”? Our client guarantees the entire toy for one year, including the music unit, regardless of the country of origin thereof. I would appreciate an advisory opinion on the above ques

tion. If I have not set forth the problem in the proper fashion or have not addressed my letter to the right department, please let me know. I will appreciate your help in obtaining an answer to this question. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Cordially yours,
CUMPSTON, SHAW & STEPHENS
George W. Shaw

Proposed promotiona! game of chance for food retailing and

gasoline industries. (File No. 703 7113)
Opinion Letter
November 18, 1970
Dear Sirs:

This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion regarding a promotion proposed by your client, Marketing Action Group, Inc. In the Commission's opinion, the game as presented would not comply with the Trade Regulation Rule for Games of Chance in the Food Retailing and Gasoline Industries (16 CFR 419.1) since the game pieces would not be mixed “totally and solely on a random basis throughout the game program and throughout the geographic area covered by the game...” Since your present submittal did not include samples of proposed advertising, the Commission cannot, of course, pass upon the manner in which the game will be promoted, but it seems obvious that if the game is to be advertised over broad.areas, perhaps on a corporate basis, the game pieces could not be said to have been mixed in accord with the clear requirement of the Rule if they are mixed and distributed in batches of five thousand. However, the Commission believes that if certain adjustments are made the promotion can be brought into conformity with the requirements of the Rule. In a game such as the one proposed by Marketing Action, a key question is the extent of “the game program” and of “the geographic area covered by the game.” You will note that paragraph 2 requires the disclosure of certain facts which tends to define these terms.

If in making the paragraph 2 disclosures Marketing Action clearly and conspicuously advertises the game on an outlet-by-outlet basis, the boundaries of the game for the purposes of the Rule will be each outlet. Since each outlet will be a separate game for the purpose of the Rule, all of the game pieces in each outlet must be mixed on a random 1772 ; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS basis, ze. all game pieces niixed together and at the same time. If Marketing Action truthfully advertises thé game on an outlet-by-outlet basis and if it mixes together and at the same time all of the pieces to be used by each outlet, the Commission believes that the game of chance proposed by Marketing Action would then comply with the

above Trade Regulation Rule.
By direction of the Commission.
Third Letter of Request
May 25, 1970