Willis, Matthew a

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

IN THE ]I fatter OF MATTHE'V A. WILLIS, TRADING AS ROGERS REDEMP- TION BUREAU AND THE THOMPSON POTTERY COM- PANY ADVERTISING DEPARTMENT COl\IPLAINT, FI~DI~GS, AND ORDER IN llEG.\RD TO THE ALLEJGED VIOLATION OF SEC.I5 OF' AN ACT OF CO~GRESS APPROYED SEPT. 26, 19U Docket 3198. Complaint, Aug. 9, 19J7-Dccision, Mar. 1, 1939 Where an indivitlual engaged in sule anl tlistribntion of silverware in commerce among the various States by means of sales-promotional plans which Included premium certificates redeemable in said ware as sent in by customers of the retail merchants a111l others to whom It sold said plans, through salesmen employed to solicit snell merchants and furnished by him with forms of contract for execution by particular merchant In purchase of plan, and with folders and catalogs illustrating such ware and samples of premium certificates or gift cards, and, as thus engaged, in substantial competition with others similarly engaged In sale and distribution of sales promotional plans and silv~>rware in commerce among the various States, and including many who do not In any manner misrepresent their business stu tus or terms ami conditions of their said plans or make any other false representations in regard to the sale and distribution of their respective products- ( a) Made use of words "Rogers Hedemption Bureau'' In trade name employed by him in his said business, and printed on the face of his said contt"Uct forms, In conspicuous large red lettet·s, words "Wm. A. Rogers Silverware'' and "'Vm. A. Rogers, Ltd.," with capacity and tendency, through use of term "Hogers" In his trade name as aforesaid, and statements on contract form, to cause members of purchasing public to have erroneous and mistal;:en belief that he was connectetl with or a part of the manufacture of Wm. A. Hogers silverware, and represented to retail merchants and others, through his said salesmen, that he, trading as aforesaid, was connected with ot' a part of "Oneida, Ltd.," manufacturer of 'Vm. A. Rogers silverware, facts being he had no connection, direct or Indirect, with said Oneida, Ltd., manufacturer of said long and ftworably known, high-grade sil\·erware, except as purchaser through jobhet· of Its products; (b) 1\Iade statements on reverse side of saitl contmct relative to number of premium certificates or gift cards required to redeem the various items of silverware, there referred to as "free," through rl'fet·ence to "NUMBER oF CARDS HEQUIRED FOR VARIOUS FREE hE~IS LISTED BELOW," and fl'presented, through salesmen, to prospective purchasers of such sales plans that the retail dealer's customers would rl.'celve sih·erwore without additional cost upon sending to him designated number of cettltlcates or cards, focts being such Items were not given away free, but there was a charge of 1 cent for each card rl'dl'emed in silverware, and Ills said agents, In many Instances, did not show form of certificate or card to retail merchants, who discovN·ed, after shipment to them of such certificate:<~, that on reverse side thereof thl•re was stateml'nt mnklug the mrd redeemable in sih-l'rware aforesaid ns per schedule below, provided bolder had recch'l'd card In regular course of trade and "l'ncloses one cent for each card''; DECISIO~S878 FEDERAL TRADE C01\Il\IISSION Complaint 2SF. T. C.

(c) Provided, In said rontract, and represented through his !'aid salesmen. that 26-piece Slt of ~;;ilvl'rware with buffet case would be furuio;hed frl'e of charge to evl'ry deall'r purchasing miuimum quantity of 10,000 certificates or cards, and that such set would become property of dealer, and also, through such rpprel'!entatlves, that he would refund to dealer purchase price for certifiratPs or cnrds when 25 1wrcent of those purchnst>d from him by the dealer had bPI'n sent ln for redemption by customers theteof, facts being l1e refute<l, in many instances, to fumish to rl'tailers such sets aftl'r their purchasl' of aforesaid minimum quantity of rertificatl's or cards, and did not refund to them purcba!'l' price of the Cl'rtificates or curds after 25 percent therpof, purchased by dealer, had been redeemed by customl'rs of latter; and (d) Made stallment on reverse side of his said. contracts, "BVILD UP A Co"I- PLETF. SILVER SER\1:CE FREE," and provided In his sai<l f;alef' plan and through his said salesmen that other articles of silverware would be rNleemed by him for various numbers of the pt·eminm certificates, and set forth on gift catalogs, consisting of one sheet of paper, which his salesrnl'n furnished to purchaser of the cards for distribution among his customl'rS, and which illustrated knives, forks, and spoons purpor·t<·d to be frl'e of charge, and showed number of car!ll-l required to redeem such "free" it!'ms, statement "Build up a complete sil•er service ft·ee. Teaspoons packed In units of six items-75 cards each," facts being only teaspoons, tabll'spoons, dinner forks, and dinner knives Wl're redeemable by said certificates or cards, all other articles hnd to be purchased outright from him, nih! last above statl'rnl'nt as to teaspoons pncked In units of six, ltc., was likewise misleading and deceptive In that 7j cnr<ls were aceeptPd in retll'mption of one only, and not the six tl'nspoons, rP<ll'mption of which t'equire•l 450 cards; 'With effect of misleading and dPeeiving members of the purchasing public and retail dealers in the various States into erronl'ous and mistal•en belief that he was connectl'd with "Oneida, Ltd.," manufacturers of \Vm. A. Rogers silverware, and that aforesaid false and misleading statl'ments rl'latiVI' to his said sales promotional plan and premium certifi<'ates were true, and Into purchasing qunntities of his said product bl'cause of such erroncous • and mistaken belief, and of thereby diverting unfairly trade to him from his competitors in commerce among the various States who truthfully advertise and represent their respective products; to the injury of com· petition in commerce:

Held, That aforesaid acts and practices were all to the prejudice and Injury of the public and competitors and constituted unfair methods of competition. Before Mr. Miles J. Furnas, trial examiner. Mr. William L. Peneke for the Commission.

Mr. Marvin A. Farrington, of ·washington, D. C., for respondent. Complaint 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, having reason to believe that Matthew ROGERS REDEMPTION BUREAU, ETC. 879 Complaint A. 'Villis, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has been and is using unfair methods of competition in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in said act, and it appearing to said Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Matthew A. Willis, is an individual, trading and doing business under the respective firm names and styles of Rogers Redemption Bureau and The Thompson Pottery Co., Advertising Department, with his principal office and place of business as to both of said firms ut 419-427 Lumber Exchange Building, in the city of Mim1eapolis and State of Minnesota. PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and has been for sewral years last past, engaged in the business of offering for sale and selling silverware and earthenware or chinaware in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. Respondent has not been nnd is not a manufacturer of either silverware or earthen or china- Ware bnt has purchased and is now purchasing said products from wholesalers or manufacturers thereof.

In the course and conduct of his business, it has been and is the practice of respondent, as is hereinafter more fully shown, to offer for sale and sell s~1id. prollucts by means of the sale of premium ~ertificates, redeemable in silverware or earthen or chinaware, to merchants and dealers of various kinds or others engaged in the class 'Or type of business in 'which such premium certificates could or can be used. Respondent causes said products, when sold, to be transported from his place of business in th~ State of :Minnesota to pur- . cha!"ers thereof located in the various other States of the U nired States.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaid, respondent is now, and for several years last past has been, in substantial competition with other individuals, corporations, firms, and partnerships likewise engaged in the business of selling premium certificates, silwrware, and earthen or chil}aware to purchasers thereof in commerce among and between"n the several States of the Dnited. States and the District of Columbia. "\Vm. A. Rogers" sih·erware has been well and favorably known for many years by the consuming public. It is manufactured by Oneida, Ltd .• New York. On the back of each piece of silverware are imprinted the words "'Vm. A. Rogers, Oneicltt, Ltd." Respondent has not had and does not have any connection 'with or relation- ~hip to said Oneida, r .. td., t'XCept as a purchaser of its products thz·ough a jobber in l\Iinneapolis.

880 FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\fiSSION DECISIONS Complaint 28 F. T. G. In the course and conduct of his business, respondent, trading as Rogers Redemption Bureau, uses the premium certificate or "sales stimulator" plan of selling silverware through the agency of sales· men. Said salesmen are supplied with forms of a contract for the purchase of gift cards or premium certificates. Conspicuous on the face of said contract, printed in large red letters, appear the words "'\Vm. A. Rogers Silverware" and "'\Vm. A. Rogers, Ltd." As an inducement for the purchase of such premium certificate-es, respondent falsely represents to said locn,l merch:tnts n,nd others that said Rogers Redemption Duren,u is connected with, or is a part of,. Oneida, Ltd., manufacturers of '\Vm. A. Rogers Silverware; that a 26-piece set of silverware with buffet case will be furnished free to every dealer purchasing the minimum quantity of 10,000 gift cards; that each merchant or dealer will be refunded the purchase price of said premium certificates after a certain number of them have been redeemed by customers of said merchant; that such customers can build up a complete silver service free; that such customers will receive silverware and earthenware or chinaware without any addi· tional cost upon sending in a designated number of certificates; that such dealer or merchant would be given an exclusive territory for the distribution of said premium certificates. There is also furnished to said merchants for distribution among the customers of the latter, a so-called gift catalog, consisting of one sheet of paper on which are illustrated the patterns of the knivesr forks, and spoons purported to be given away free and showing the number of cards or premium certificates required for the "Free· Items" in the following manner:

Build up a Complete Silver Service Free Teaspoons Packed in Units of Six 75 cards each, and listing the other items in the same manner. Respondent represents to said merchants or dealers, and said sales agreement specifically recites, that said gift cards will be redeemed absolutely free for articles listed in the gift catalog, postage prepaid. No samples of said gift cards or premiums eertifica tes are shown to the merchant and such dealer has no opportunity to examine the cards and know the full terms of redemption aetnally stated there· on. Said cnrds are shipped to said merchant from rpspondent's place of business in Minneapolis after the execution of said sales agreement. Said cards contain the advertisement of the merchant; and many of them contain the following instruction: Wm. A. Rogers Silverware to our Customers This card is redeemable In Rogers Silverware as per S<'hednle below, provid· lng the holder has re<'elved this card In the regnlnr course of trade and encloses one cent for each card. Shipping and packing charges fully prepaid. ROGERS REDEl\IPTIO~ BUREAU, ETC. 881 877 Complaint In truth and in fact the said sales contract is ambiguous and mis~ leading because of the appearance of the words "'Vm. A. Rogers Silverware" and "'Vm. A. Rogers, Ltd.," in that the prospedive purchaser is led into the erroneous belief that respondent is connected with the manufacturer, namely, Oneida, Ltd., of New York. Likewise the name under which responuent does business, to wit, Rogers Redemption Bureau, is misleading in the use of the word "Rogers" because it implies that respondent in some manner is connected with the manufacture of Rogers silverware, which silverware has for many years been known throughout the United States by the consuming public as a high grade reliable product.

In truth and in fact the respondent has no connection whatever with Oneida, Ltd., except as an indirect purchaser of its merchandise. In many instances, the respondent has not furnished, or has refused to furnish, the 26-piece set of silverware after the ·purchase by a merchant of the minimum quantity of 10,000 gift cards. Contrary to the representations made by respondent's salesmen or agents, the respondent has not refunded to said merchants the purchase price paid for the gift cards after the number of cards required to be redeemed have in fact been redeemed by customers of such merchant. Customers of said merchants cannot build up a complete silverware service free, as represented in the advertising matter, in that only spoons, forks, and knives are redeemable with gift cards and all other articles necessary to constitute the complete set of silverware have to be purchased from respondent at prices substantially the same as those charged by regular retailers of silverware. A dealer or merchant is not given an exclusive territory for the distribution of gift· cards; but on the contrary respondent has made it a practice to sell said gift cards to a number of merchants doing business in the same territory.

The language "Teaspoons packed in units of six 75 cards each" is ambiguous and misleading in that the consumer mailing in to the respondent 75 cards does so in the belief that a unit of 6 spoons will be sent in return for said 75 cards, whereas in truth and in fact the respondent furnishes only 1 spoon for each 75 cards sent in; therefore requiring 450 cards for each unit of 6 spoons. Although the advertisements state that silverware will be redeemed absolutely free to customers of merchants to whom respondent sells said gift cards, said customers find in many instances that they are required to send 1 cent with each card given to them before they are entitled to any silverware.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of his business, respondent, trading as Thompson Pottery Advertising Department, uses the premium CO~DIISSION DECISIONS882 }'EV£RAL TRADE Complaint 28F. T. C.

certificate of "sales stimulator" plan of selling earthen or chinaware through the agency of salesmen. Said salesmen are supplied with forms of a contract for the purchase of gift cards or premium cer· tificates. Conspicuous on the face of said contract, printed in large red letters, appear the words "The Thompson Pottery Company," in smaller letters "Advertising Department," and directions are given that checks be made payable to "The Thompson Pottery Company, Advertising Departm€nt." The contract further contains the follow· ing statements:

Reference any mercantile agency and Potteries E. Liverpool, Ohio, estab· lished 1868.

IMPORTANT NOTICE Inasmuch as this is purely a campaign to be used as a furtherance of our business, kindly do not enter into this agreement unless convinced of its effidency as a sales stimulant and intending to cooperate with us. The name Thompson on chinaware is world known. Only genuine Thompson China USA will be used. The C. C. Thompson Pottery Company, together with the facsimile signature "Geo. C. Thompson, President." Respondent agrees "to make refund to dealer at the rate of $-:1:.00 per thousand on all of these cards redeemed upon redemption of 25% ." In addition to furnishing circulars and other advertising matter, respondent agrees to furnish to any dealer purchasing said cards, without any charge whatever, a set of chinaware consisting of various numbers of pieces depending upon the number of cards purchased. In connection with the solicitation by respondent's salesmen or orders for said gift cards from merchants or dealers, said salesmen exhibit to such merchants a photostatic copy of a page of Dun & Bradstreet's financial rating book. A large and conspicuous arrow points to the name ''Thompson C. C. Pottery Company, the mfrs. B 1," indicating that The C. C. Thompson Pottery Co. has a very high credit rating. Under the terms of said contract, respondent agrees to redeem said advertising cards according to the terms printed on the back of each card. Is was and is the practice of respondent's salesmen in soliciting orders for such advertising cards, and as an inducement to tlw merchant to purchase said cards, to represent to such merchant that there would be no expense whatever connected with the redemption of said cards by the customers of said merchant, but that the chinaware would be sent free and without any additional cost upon receipt of a requisite numb~r of cards; and at the time of soliciting such sales as aforesaid, the salesman would not exhibit any sample card to the prospective purchaser.

In truth and in fact the use of the name "Thompson Pottery Company, Advertising Department," and the phrase "I>otteries East ROGERS REDEMPTION BUREAU, ETC. 883 877 Complaint Liverpool, Ohio, established 1868," together with the use of the nam~ The C. C. Thompson Pottery Co. and the facsimile signature of the president is false and misleading in that it implies to the merchtmt or dealer purchasing said advertising cards that respondent's business is, in fact, a part or bmnch of The C. C. Thompson Pottery Co., a11d induces such merchant or dealer to purchase said c~u·ds because The C. C. Thompson Pottery Co. is, and for many years has been, well and favorably known throughout the country. The use of the reference contained in the financial rating book "Dun & Bradstreet" and the giving as a reference of any mercantile agency is false and misleading, because the respondent's firm, to wit, "The Thompson Pottery Company Advertising Department," has no rating of any nature whatever in any mercantile agency nor is it rated by Dun & Bradstreet.

The chinaware sent to merchants in accordance with said agreement is not of the same grade and quality as the china ware exhibited to them at the time of the solicitation of orders, but in truth and in fact is of a much inferior quality. The respondent does not refund to the dealer the purchase price of said advertising cards after 25 percent thereof has been redeemed by said merchant's customers, but on the contrary refuses to make such refunds until all the said canis have been redeemed.

In truth and in fact, said chinaware is not sent free, but on thll back of each card appears a condition to the effect that the holder of said card is required to enclose 1 cent for each card before he can receive said chinaware.

PAR. 5. There are, among respondent's competitors, many individ· uals, partnerships, and corporations offering for sale and selling in interstate commerce in competition with respondent's silverware and earthen or chinaware and similar products under similar ad,·ertising or business-stimulating plans, who do not mislead prospectiye purchasers and purchasers by falsely using names of firms whose products they sell, who do not use ambiguous and misleading contracts, and who do not in any manner misrepresent the products and merchandise which they offer for sale and sell.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent hereinabove described have l1ad, and do have, the capacity and tentlency to mislend and deceive the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that the respondent is directly or indirectly eonnPcted with the manufacturers of 'Vm. A. Rogers Silverware, to wit, Oneida, Ltd., 01• with The C. C. Thompson Pottery Co., and that in entering into agreements or contracts with the rpspondent they are entering into contracts or agreements with Oneida, Ltd., or The C. C. Thompson 884 FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION DECISIONS Findings 28 F. T. C. Pottery Co., and that the representations of respondent relative ro the redemption of the premium or advertising certificate have been and are true; and they are led into the purchase of such certificates redeemable in silverware or chinaware in reliance upon such erroneous belief.

As a result of the aforesaid false and misleading statements, advertisements, and representations by the respondent with respect to said products, trade has been unfairly diverted to him from his said competitor!'>, whose ability to compete successfully with respondent has been, and is, lessened and injured by the methods of the respondent hereinbefore set forth.

PAR. 7. The above acts and things done, or caused to be done, by the respondent, were and are each and all to the prejudice of the public and of respondent's competitors, and constitute unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce within the meaning and intent of Section 5 of "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved September 26, 1914.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO Tile FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission, on the 9th day of August 1937, issued and thereafter served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondent, Matthew A. ·willis, trading as Rogers Redemption Bmeau and The Thompson Pottery Co., Advertising Department, charging him with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in viola.tion of the provisions of said act. After the issuance of said complaint, testimony, and other evidence in support of the allegations of said complaint v>ere introduced by William L. Pencke, attorney for ths Commission, and in opposition to the allegations of the complaint by l\farvin L. Farrington, attorney for the respondent, before Miles J, Furnas, an examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, and said testimony and other evidence were duly recorded and iiled in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on said complaint, testimony, and other evidence, brief in support of the complaint, respondent not having filed brief, and the oral arguments of counsel aforesaid; and the Commission, having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings ns to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom. ROGERS REDEMPTION BUREAU, ETC. 885 877 Findings FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Matthew A. ·willis, is an individual trading and doing business under the firm name and style of "Rogers Redemption Bureau," and having his principal office and place of business at 419-427 Lumber Building in the city of Minneapolis, State of Minnesota.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and has been for several years last past, engaged in the business of selling anti distributing silverware in commerce among and between the various States of the United States by means of the sale 1ui.d distribution of sales promotional plans, including premium certificates redeemable in silverware, to retail merchants and others situated in various States of the United States. Respondent has caused said products, when sold by him, to be transported from his aforesaid place of business in the State of :Minnesota to the purchasers thereof at their respective points of location in various States of the United States. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a course of trade in commerce in said products among and between various States of the United States. P.\R. 3. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaid, respondent is now, and has been during all of the times mentioned herein, in substantial competition in commerce among and between various States of the United States with other individuals and with <:orporations, firms, and partnerships engaged in the busin<.'ss of selling and distributing sales-promotional plans and silverware in commerce among and between various States of the United States. Among said competitors of respondent are many who do not in any manner misrepresent their business status, the terms and conditions ()£ their sales promotional plans, or make any other false representations in regard to the sale and distribution of their respective products.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaid, respondent sells and distributes to retail merchants and others a sales promotional plan in which the merchant agrees to purchase from the respondent a minimum number of premium certificates or gift cards redeemable in respondent's silverware, on which certificates is printed the name of the retail merchant, together with such other advertising matter as the merchant may desire. The said premium certificates or gift cards are distributett by the merchant to his customers, the number of cards so distributed to each customer being dependent upon the amount of the customer's purchases from the merchant. Respondent furnishes to such merchants catalogs describing respondent's silver- CO~IMISSIO.N DECISIOXS 886 FEDERAL TRADE Findiugs 28 F. T. C: ware for which such premium certificates will be redeemed by respondent. After the customer of the retail merchant has accumulated a specified number of premium certificates or gift cards, th~ customer sends such certificates to the respondent for redemption in the articles of silverware selected by the customer from respondent's catalo:x. Respondent thereafter distributes the silvenYare selected to the customer of the retail merchant.

PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of his business as aforesaidr respondent sells said sales promotional plan to retail merchants through the medium of salesmen. Approximately 16 salesmen are employed by respondent, and such salesmen sell such sales-promotional plan to the purchasers thereof in approximately three-fourths of the States of the United States. Respondent furnishes his salesmen with forms of a contract to be executed by the retail merchants in the purchase of such plan, folders, and catalogs illustrating said silverware and samples of the premium certificates or gift cards. There is printed on the face of said contract in conspicuous, larp:e red letters the words, "'Vm. A. Rogers Silverware" r.nd '('Vm. A. Rogers, Ltd." As an inducement for the purchase of said salespromotional plan, respondent's salesmen represent to retail merchants and others that the respondent, Matthew A. 'Villis, trading as Rogers Redemption Bureau, is connected with or is a part of "Onehla, Lttl.,'' the manufacturer of 'Vm. A. Rogers Silver·ware. Said contract further provides and respondent's salesmen represent to prospective purchasers that a 26-piece set of silverware with a buffet case "·ill be furnished free of charge to every dealer purchasing the minimum quantity (10,000) of premium certificates or gift cards, and that said display set of silverware will become the property of the dealer. On the reverse side of said contract there appear statements relative to the number of premium certificates or gift cards required to redeem the various items of silverware, which are referred to by respondent as "free" items. Such statements read, in rart, as follows~ Number of Cards Required for Various Free Items Listed Bt>low. Build Up a Complete Siln•r Service Free.

Teaspoons Packed in Units of Six-75 Cards E11ch. The sales plan further provides and respondent's salesmen represent that other articles of silverware will be redeemed by respondent for various numbers of the premium certificates. The salesmrn of respondent represent to prospective purchasers of said sales plan that the customers of the retail dealer will receive silverware without any additional cost upon sending to the respondent a designated number of premium certificates or gift cards; that the dealer or merchant will be given exclusive territory for the distribution of such premium ROGERS REDEMPTION BUREA"C", ETC. 887 ~77 Findings certificates or gift cards, and that the respondent will refund to the dealer the purchase price for the premium certificates or gift cards when 25 percent of the premium certificates purchased from the respondent by such dealer had been sent in for redemption by customers of the dealer. The salesmen of respondent also furnish to purchasers of said plan, for distribution among their customers, gift catalogs consisting of one sheet of paper illustrating the knives, fork,., and spoons purported to Le gin:'ll away free of charge, and showing the number of gift cards required to redeem such "free" items. There is printed on such sheet the following statement: Build up a complete silver serrice frf'e.

Teaspoons packed in units of six items-75 cards each. In truth and in fact such items are not given away free of charge. There is a charge of 1 cent for each gift card redeemed in silverware. In many instances the agents of respondent do not show the form of premium certificate or gift card to the retail merchants, who discover after the said premium certificates have been shipped to them by respondent that on the reverse side thereof there is the following statement:

This card is redeemable in Rogers Silverware as per srhedule below, pro- Vided the bolder has r~>ceb·ed this card in the regular course of trade and en- <'loses one cent for each card. Shipping and packing charges fully prepaid. PAR. 6. 'Vm. A. Rogers Sih-erware is now, and has been for many years, known by members of the purchasing public situated in various States of the United States as manufacturers of high-grade silver- . Ware. All silverware manufactured by said \Vm. A. Rogers Silver- Ware is branded "Oneida, Ltd., Oneida, N. Y." The Commission finds that salesmen of the respondent have falsely represented to prospective purchasers of respondent's sales plan that respondent is -connected with or is a part of the manufacturer of \Vm. A. Rogers Silverware. The Commission further finds that the use by the respondent of the term "Rogers" in his trade name "Rogers Redemption Bureau" and the aforesaid statement relative to the Jnanufacturer of 'Vm. A. Rogers Silverware contained on the form ·of contract used by. respondent in selling his sales plan have the tendency and capacity to cause members of the purchasing public, to have the erroneous and mistaken belief that respondent is connected With or is a part of the manufacturer of 'Vm. A. Rogers Silverware. In truth and in fact, respondent is not directly or indirectly connected with Oneida, Ltd., manufacturers of \Vm. A. Rogers Silver- Ware, except as a purchaser of its products through a jobber located iin Minneapolis, 1\linn.

888 FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\USSIO~ DECISIONS Findings 2s F.'!'. c. PAR. 7. In truth and in fact, respondent has in many instances refused to furnish to retail dealers the 26-piece set of silverware after the purchase by the dealers from the respondent of the minimum quantity of 10,000 premium certificates or gift cards. Respondent has not refunded to the retail dealers the purchase price for said premium certificates or gift cards after 25 percent of the cards purchased by the dealer had been redeemed by customers of the merchants. The aforesaid statement and representation by respondent that customers of the retail merchants could build up a complete silver service free of charge is false and misleading for the reason that only teaspoons, tablespoons, dinner forks, and dinner knives are redeemable by said premium certificates or gift cards, all other articles having to be purchased outright from respondent. The aforesaid statement by respondent that "Teaspoons packed in units of six-75 cards each" is misleading and deceptive in that holders of said premium certificates or gift cards are and were thereby led to erroneously believe that 75 gift cards would be required to redeem 6 teaspoons, when in truth and in fact 75 gift cards were required to redeem 1 teaspoon, thus requiring 450 cards to redeem each unit of 6 teaspoons.

It appears from the record that many complaints were received by various Better Business Bureaus and tliat when such complaints were called to the attention of the respondent he found that in most cases the misrepresentations complained of were made by his salesmen. After repeated complaints had been made respondent, subsequent to the issuance of the complaint, rewrote and reformed his said sales contract on several different occasions within the space of 10 months eliminating certain objectionable features and clarifying the language of said contract.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid statements and representations by respondent, used and disseminated as aforesaid, have the capacity and tendency to, and do, mislead and deceive members of the purchasing public and retail dealers situated in various States of the United States into the erroneous and mistaken belief that respondent is connected with Oneida, Ltd., manufacturers of Wm . .A. Rogers silverware, and that the aforesaid false and misleading statements and representations relative to respondent's sales promotional plan and premium certificates are true, and into purchasing quantities of respondent's products because of said erroneous and mistaken belief. As a result, trade has been diverted unfairly to the respondent from his competitors, in commerce among and between various States of the United States, who truthfully a<h-ertise and represent their ROGERS REDEl\IPTION BUREAU, ETC. 889 877 Order respective products. In consequence thereof, injury has been, and is now being, done by respondent to competition in commerce among and between the various States of the United States. CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent, as herein found, are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of respondent, testimony, and other evidence taken before Miles J. Furnas, au examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, in support of the allegations of said complaint and in opposition thereto, briefs filed herein, and oral arguments by "\Villinm L. Pencke, counsel for the Commission, and by 1\farvin Farrington, counsel for the respondent, and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondent has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is ordered,· That respondent, 1\fatthew A. "\Villis, trading as Rogers Redemption Bureau, or under any other name or names, his representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of silverware or sales-promotional plans, including Premium certificates, gift cards, or coupons, redeemable in silverware or other articles of merchandise in commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, through use of the word ''Rogers," either alone or in connection with any other word or ·words, in a corporate or trade name, or through statements in advertising, or in any other :manner, that respondent has an interest in, forms a part of, or has any connection with Onedia, Ltd., manufacturer of "\Vm. A. Rogers silverware; provided, however, that this order shall not be construed to prohibit the respondent from dealing in "\Vm. A. Rogers silverware. 2. Representing that certificates, gift cards, or other similar device can be redeemed in silverware or other merchanuise unless and until all of the terms and conditions of such offer are clearly and unequivocally stated in equal conspicuousness and. in immediate connec- 890 FEDERAL TRADE CO?>DIISSIOX DECISIONS Order !:!SF.T.C. tion or conjunction with such offer and there is no deception as to the services or other actions to be performed or the price to be paid in connection with obtaining such silverware or other articles of merchandise.

3. Representing that the purchase price for said certificates or gift cards ·will be refunded to the dealer purchasers thereof or that the respondent will supply to such dealer purchasers without charge display sets of silverware, to become the property of such dealers, unless and until such are the facts and unless all of the terms and conditions of such offer or offers are clearly and unequivocally stated in equal conspicuousness and immediate connection or conjunction with such offer or offers and there is no deception as to the services or other actions to be performed by the dealer purchasers in connection with obtaining such refund and display set of silverware. . 4. Representing that a complete set of silverware or any specific item of silverware can be acquired through the redemption of such certificates, gift cards, or similar devices unless and until such is the fact.

5. Using any representations with respect to the number of certificates or gift cards required to be redeemed in order to obtain any specific merchandise, which representations do not clearly and accurately diclose the number of such certificates or gift cards acturrlly required to obtain such merchandise.

It is further ordered, That the respondent shall, within 60 days after service upon him of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which he has complied with this order.

AMBROSIA CANDY CO. ET AL. 891 Syllabus