Selick, Inc., C. H

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In THe Matrer oF C. H. SELICK, INCORPORATED COMPLAINT (SYNOPSIS), FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26,1914 Docket 1672. Complaint, May 28, '1929—Decision, Feb, 1, 1980 Where a domestic corporation engaged in the sale of perfumes made by it in _ the United States of the cheaper grades of essential olls produced in forelgn countries and by it purchased from a New York concern, (a) Labeled the bottles thereof “ L'Are Narcisse~-Jardeau—New York, Paris”, “ Lucienne—Parls, New York”, and (at request of dealer customers) “Jay's Narcissus—Jay et Cle—Paris, New York”, or “Bea Van et Cle— Paris, New York”, together with the word “France” on the reverse side and in conspicuous letters on the bottle containers, in which displayed, offered and sold, thus Jaheled and designated, to the consuming public by dealer yendees; and (6) Depicted said labels and bottles first above referred to, in eirculara distributed to the trade;

With the capacity and tendency to mislead and decelve vendees and many of the consuming public Into believing said products to be perfumes made fu Paris or France, long widely popular with and in demand by the domestic trade and consuming public and considered by many thereof as more desirable in the matter of quality and other characteristics than the home product and by them bought in preference thereto, and into purchasing {ts sald perfumes in such helfef, and with the result of placing in the hands of {ts dealer and peddler vendees the instrument and means for committing a fraud upon a substantial portion of the consuming public by enabling them to represent, offer and sell the same as made in the aforesaid city or country, and tendency to divert business from and otherwise ‘injure and prejudice competitors importing and dealing in perfumes in fact there made or compounded and rightfully and Jawfully so represented by them, and competitors dealing In the domestic product without In any manner misrepresenting the same ag above set forth: Feld, That such practices were all ta the prejudice of the public, and competttors and constituted unfair methods of competition, Mr, Edward L. Smith for the Commission. ' Santangelo & Lukas, of New York City, for respondent. Synopsis or Complaint Reciting its action in the public interest, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Commission charged respondent, a New York corporation engaged in compounding perfumes and other toilet preparations and in the sale thereof to retail dealers and peddlers, and with principal office and place of business Findings 13 F.T.C.

in New York City, with misbranding or mislabeling and advertising falsely or misleadingly in violation of the provisions of section 5 of such act, prohibiting the use of unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce.

Respondent, as charged, engaged as above set forth in compounding its perfumes with the cheaper grades of essential oils to which are added alcohol and water in the proportion of 4 ounces of the oil to 1 gallon of alcohol, at its place of business in New York City, labels the 1-ounce bottles and vials in which it principally sells its product with one of the four following brand names, to wit— “T’Are Narcisse—Jardeau—New York, Paris”—and on the back “France”; ‘“ Lucienne—Paris, New York”—and on the back “ France ”; “ Bea Van et Cie—Paris, New York”; “ Jay’s Narcisse— Jay et Cie—Paris, New York”. Respondent, further, as charged, features the word “ Paris ” upon the containers in which it packs its said perfumes and distributes circulars carrying reproductions of the aforesaid bottles and containers.

Said acts and practices, as alleged, have the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive its vendees and many of the consuming public into believing said perfumes to have been manufactured in Paris, France, and imported into the United States and into purchasing the same in such belief,’ and the effect of placing in the hands of its dealer and peddler vendees the instrument and means of committing a fraud upon a substantial portion of the consuming public by enabling them to offer and sell its perfumes as and for products made in Paris, France, and have the further tendency to divert business from and otherwise injure and prejudice competitors who deal in perfumes in fact there made and imported therefrom and rightfully and lawfully represent the same as such, and those who deal in domestic perfumes without any such misrepresentation; all to the prejudice of the public and respondent’s competitors. Upon the foregoing complaint, the Commission made the following Rerort, Finpines as To THE Facts, anp Orper Pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled “An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes”, the Federal Trade Commission issued and served its complaint upon the respondent, C. H. Selick, Inc., a corporation, charging it with 1The complaint alleging that many of the trade and consuming public in the United States belleve that French perfumes, long widely popular and in demand therein, are superior to the domestic perfumes and purchase the French Imported product in prefer. ence to those made in the United States.

0. H. SELICK, ING, 181 179 Findings the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce, in violation of the provisions of section 5 of the said act of Congress. Thereupon the said respondent entered its appearance and filed its answer to the said complaint, and hearings were had before an examiner of this Commission duly appointed, and testimony was offered and received in support of the charges of the complaint and testimony was offered and received in defense of the charges of the complaint, all of which said testimony was reduced to writing and filed in the office of said Commission; and thereafter the proceeding came on for final hearing on the record, briefs and oral arguments, and the Commission having duly considered the same and being fully advised in the premises, now makes this.its report and states its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom: FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS Paracrarn 1. Respondent is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business in the City of Néw York, in said State. Respondent is now and for more than fifty years has been engaged in the business of compounding perfumes and other toilet preparations and in the sale of said products chiefly to retail dealers and peddlers located in various States of the United States. Respondent causes said products, when so sold, to be transported from its place of business in the City of New York, State of New York, into and through other States of the United States to said vendees at their respective points of location. In the course and conduct of its said business, said respondent is in competition with other corporations and with partnerships and individuals engaged in the sale of perfume and other toilet preparations in commerce between and among the various States of the United States, Par. 2. All of respondent’s products are manufactured in the United States. The body of its perfumes is alcohol, to which are added certain essential oils purchased by respondent from Norda Essential Oil & Chemical Co. of New York City. These essential oils are produced in a large number of foreign countries, including France. The respondent, in compounding its products, uses the cheaper grades of essential oils and the process of manufacture con- Sists of adding to the essential oils alcohol and water in the approxi- _ Mate proportion of 4 ounces of the essential oil to 1 gallon of alcohol. The product is then filtered, bottled, labeled, and packed for shipment, 24025°—81—vor 18-——18 Findings 13 F. TC.

Par. 3. The perfumes sold by respondent in interstate commerce, as in paragraph 1 hereof set out, are sold principally in 1-ounce bottles and vials, and principally under two brands. For more than two years such bottles have been labeled, and still are labeled: “TL’Are Narcisse—Jardeau—New York, Paris” and “ Lucienne— Paris, New York”. From July, 1928, to November, 1928, bottles carrying the label “L’Are Narcisse—Jardeau—New York, Paris” bore on their reverse side the word “ France ” on a label. Circulars carrying reproductions of such labels and bottles are distributed to the trade by respondent. Respondent packs said bottles of perfume so labeled, in certain containers upon which respondent causes to be set forth the word “ Paris” printed in conspicuous letters. Respondent delivers said perfumes so bottled, labeled, designated, and packed as aforesaid, to its aforesaid vendees, and said perfumes still so bottled, labeled, designated, and packed are by said vendees displayed, offered for sale, and sold to the consuming public.

Respondent, prior to the issuance of the complaint herein, manufactured and still manufactures perfumes for one J. Cohen, of New York City, who resells such perfumes to retail stores, many of which are located outside of the State of New York, and respondent, for the account of said J. Cohen, ships such perfumes in bottles to such customers, and directly to said J. Cohen, which bottles carry the following described label furnished to respondent by said J. Cohen: “ Jay’s Narcissus—Jay et Cie—Paris, New York ”. Respondent, prior to the issuance of the complaint herein, manufactured and still manufactures perfumes for Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc., of Boston, Mass., which perfumes said Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc., resells, chiefly to retail stores located outside of the State of New York, and respondent, for the account of said Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc., ships such perfumes in bottles to such customers of said Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc., and directly to said Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc., which bottles carry the following described label furnished to respondent by said Cosmetics & Drugs, Inc.: “Bea Van et Cie—Paris, New York”.

The above are complete descriptions of the labeling on said four brands of perfume, except that bottles bearing the label “ Bea Van et Cie—Paris, New York” carry an additional label reading, “ Eau de Toilette”. Nowhere on the labels or on the boxes containing the individual bottles of said four brands of perfumes does the name of respondent appear.

Par. 4. Perfumes manufactured in France have for many years enjoyed widespread popularity, good will, and demand among the C. H, SELICK, INO, 183 179 ; Findings trade and consuming public throughout the United States, many of whom believe and consider that perfumes manufactured in France are superior in quality to perfumes manufactured in the United States and that such perfumes manufactured in France have other characteristics more desirable than have perfumes manufactured in the United States, and many of the consuming public throughout the United States purchase perfumes manufactured in France and imported into the United States, in preference to purchasing perfumes manufactured in the United States.

Par. 5. Respondent does no business of any kind whatsoever, and has never done any business, in Paris, France, or in France; about sixty days prior to August 19, 1929, and after the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding, respondent entered into an arrangement with a French firm not engaged in any branch of the perfumery business, whereby said firm undertook, for a stated sum, to send to respondent samples of French perfumes and samples of French bottles. All of the transactions between respondent and said French firm during the time such arrangement was in effect, up to August 19, 1929, consisted of a letter written by respondent to said firm, a letter sent by said firm to respondent, and a eablegram. Par. 6. Respondent’s aforesaid labeling, advertising, and designating of its perfumes as set out herein have the capacity and tendency to mislead and deceive its vendees and many of the con- Suming public into the belief that its said perfumes are manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France, and imported into the United States, and to purchase said perfumes in that belief, when in truth and in fact respondent’s said perfumes are manufactured and compounded in the United States. Par. 7. Further, respondent’s said labeling, advertising, and designating of its perfumes, as set out herein, places in the hands of aforesaid dealer and peddler vendees the instrument and means whereby said dealers and peddlers may commit fraud upon a substantial portion of the consuming public by enabling said dealers and peddlers to represent, offer for sale, and sell respondent’s said berfumes as perfumes manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France.

Par. 8. There are among the competitors of respondent, referred to in paragraph 1 hereof, many who deal in and sell perfumes manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France, and im- Ported into the United States, and who rightfully and lawfully represent said perfumes to be such. There are others of said competitors who deal in and sell perfumes manufactured and compounded in the United States and who in no manner represent their Order 18 F.T.0.;

said perfumes to be manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France. Respondent’s acts and practices hereinbefore set out, tend to divert business from and otherwise injure and prejudice said competitors.

CONCLUSION The practices of the respondent, under the conditions and cir | cumstances set forth in the foregoing findings are all to the prejudice : of the public and of respondent’s competitors and are unfair methods of competition in commerce and constitute a violation of section 5 of an act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled “An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes”.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Com-! mission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of the ' respondent, testimony and evidence submitted, briefs and arguments of counsel, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and entered its conclusion that the respondent has violated section 5 of the act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled “An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes”, . It is now ordered, That respondent, C. H. Selick, Inc. its representatives, agents, servants, employees, and successors, forthwith cease and desist from using directly or indirectly the word “ Paris ” and/or the word “ France ” on the labels of bottles of perfumes man- ° ufactured or compounded by it and by it sold, offered for sale, or shipped in interstate commerce, and/or on the containers of said bottles of perfume unless such perfumes be manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France, and from, in any other way, labeling, advertising and designating its perfumes sold, offered for sale, or shipped in interstate commerce, a3 being manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France, unless such perfumes be manufactured or compounded in Paris, France, or in France. , And it is further ordered, That the respondent, C. H. Selick, Inc., shall, within 60 days from service upon it of a copy of this order, file with this Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order by this Commission herein set forth. THE ANITA INSTITUTE 185 Complaint