United Drug Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF UNITED DRUG COMPANY COM:PUINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION . OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 3729. Compla·int, Mar. 4, 1939-Decision, Oct. 26, 194:! Where a corporation, engaged in the compounding and in the competitive Interstate sale and distribution of Its "Cara Name" face powder, among · various cosmetic preparations- Sold Its .said powder so packaged that outside container of package was twice the size of the Inmost "powder pouch," in turn included in an Intermediate container, whereby powder content much greater than was the fact was indicated, absent opening enabling prospective purchaser to determine' size of pouch and opportunity of content Inspection by reason of cellophane wrapping employed In recent years;

. 'With tendency and capacity of misleading and deceiving a substantial portion · of the purchasing public with respect to the quantity of powder contained Within said packages, and of causing it to purchase substantial quantities of Powder in question; whereby trade was diverted unfairly to said corporation · . from Its competitors who do not use any such misleading method: · !feld, That such .acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were all to . the prejudice of the public and competitors, and constituted unfair methods of competition in commerce.

As respects the Insistence of a seller of face powder engaging in the alleged · '' misleading practice of packaging the same so containered that innermost ''powder pouch," enclosed by larger container, In turn Included In a still · 1 larger container, size, and capacity of which were such as to Indicate that . quantity of powder was much greater than was the fact, in the absence of any visual or practical opportunity for determining the- true content, that It is the custom and practice of the trade· to package cosmetic products In . attractive containers, frequently involving use of those· which do not · accurateiy indicate the exact quantity of the product enclosed; the Commission was of the opinion, nevertheless, after making .due allowimce for such . ·. ·, factors, • that the particular package in question was misleading, in that ·' size of outside container was substantially In excess of that which could reasonably be considered necessary for packaging the quantity of powder therein contained.

Before Mr. Lewis 0. Russell, trial examiner . . Mr. Jesse D. [{ash and Mr. Oarrel F. Rhodes for the Commission. Mr. lVilliam F. Davis, Jr., of Boston, Mass., and Mr .. Richar.d.. A. Mahar, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. . :

644 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISS'ION DECISIONS 35 F. T. CJ, Complaint :I COMPLAINT Pursua~t to the provision~ of the F~de:ai Tra~e Commission A~~ and by VIrtue of the authonty vested m It by said act, the Feder Trade Commission, having reason to believe that United Drug Co., a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeeding 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. The respondent, United Drug Co., is a ~orporation; organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its officf and principal pla:ce of business in the city of Boston, State 0 :Massachusetts. · PAR. 2. The respondent is now, and has been for several years ~ast past, engaged in the business of compounding, selling and distribut1n~ various cosmetic preparations. One of the preparations ~ompounde and distributed by respondent is known as and sold under the name "Cara N orne Face Powder." Respondent· causes its said products£ when sold, to be transported from its place of business in the city 0 Boston, State of Massachusetts, to the purchasers thereof located in various States of the United States other than the State of Massad chusetts and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains, a~ at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a course of trade in said preparation in commerce among and bet,veen the various· States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respond.ent sells its said preparation "Cara N orne Face Powder" to retaif stores for resale to th~ purchasing and consuming public, · · ·, . PAI<. 3. Respondent, in the :course and conduct of its business in said commerce, as aforesaid, is in competition with other corporations' and with firms, partnerships, and individuals selling and. distributing cosmetics and allied products in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Among such competitors in said commerce are many who do not, in any manner, misrepresent the quantity or amount of said prepara.· tion which is encl<?sed in the container in which said preparation is offered for sale and sold to the purchasing and consuming p~!hli~, and who do not misrepresent, in any manner, the quantity of their preparation which is offered for sale and sold. . . PAn. 4. Respondent packages its said product, "Cara N orne Face Powder," in cardboard containers which are so completely enclosed in cellophane wrappers as not to afford an opportunity for purchasers to examine or inspect the content thereof to determine the qtiantity of UNITED DRUG CO. 645 643 Findings Powger therein contained until after a purchase has been made and -!I the cellophane wrapper destroyed. . . Said cardboard containers are of a capacity and size greatly in excess of that required to package the quantity of said pqwder actually placed therein by the respondent. Said containers, when offered for sale and sold to the purchasing public, are not filled to capacity with the said powder but are only parti~lly filled, the quantity of powder contained therein varying from 50 to 70 percent of the capacity of said containers. The practice of the respondent of only partially filling said containers with said powder is what is known in ~he trade and generally as "slack filling," and is a practice that is not indulged in by a great majority of the competitors of the respondent because of the inherent deceptive capacity of such practice, as purchasers of such products, expect the containers thereof to he filled to approximate capacity. · PAR. 5. The acts and practices of the respondent in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution of its said product in said commerce ·as aforesaid in "slack filling" said containers and in using containers of a size and capacity of from 30 to 50 percept greater than that necess.ary or required to package the quantity of powder actually Placed in such containers are misleading and deceptive and have the capacity and tendency to and do lead prospective purchasers erroneously and mistakenly to believe that said containers are filled to ca• Pacity and contain the quantity of powder indicated by the capacity of the containers, and because of said erroneous and mistaken belief to purchase substantial quantities of respondent's said face powder. As a result thereof, trade in said commerce is diverted unfairly to respondent from its competitors, whQ do not engage in the practices aforesaid, to their injury, and to the injury of the public. PAR.· 6. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent as herein alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of re- ~Pondertt's competitors and constitute unfair methods of competition ln commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce Within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ~ REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO Tile FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission, on March 4, 1939, issued and subse• quently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondent, United Drug Co., a corporation, charging it with the use of unfair lnethods of competition in conunerce and unfair and deceptive nets and Practices in conunerce in violation of the provisions of that act. After .''' 646 FEDERAL TRADE· ·commission DECISIONS Findings- 35F. T.C;

the· fii"ing of ·r~spondent's answer, testimony and· other eviden~e in support Of the allegations of the complaint were introduced by the I ; l attorneys for th~ Corimiission, and in opposition thereto by the· ·attor· neys for the respond~nt, before a trial examiner of the Commissio~ theretofore duly designated by it, and· such testimony and other evl· dence. were duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commissio:rt oh the complaint, the answer thereto (together with a motion to dismiss the complaint), testimony imd other evidence, report' of the trial examiner upon the evidence and the exception~ ~ such report, briefs in support of and in opposition to the complaint, and oral argument; and the Commission, having duly considered t~e 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 as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. The respondent, United Drug Co., is a corporati?11' . organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its office and principal place of business located fn the city of Boston, Mass. 'Respondent is now, and for a number of years last past bas been, engaged in the business of compounding, selling, and distribut· ing various cosmetic preparations, one of which is a face powder designated by respondent as "Cara Name". face powd~r. Respond· ~nt's products are sold and distributed to the public principally through retail dealers. . PAR. 2. In the course and conduct of its business respondent c~uses and has caused its products, when solq, to be tran~ported from its place of business i~ the State· of Massachusetts to purchasers there?£ located in various other .States of the United States and in the DIS· trict of Columbia. Respondent maintains and has maintained 11 course of trade in its products in commerce among and between the va.rious States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. Respondent is, and at all times mentioned herein has been, in substantial competition with other corporations and with part· nerships and individuals engaged' in the sale and distribution of face powders and other cosmetic preparations. in commerce among and between the various States of the United States and in the Dis· trict of Columbia. · · . PAR. 4. The cardboard containers in which respondent packages its Cara Name face powder. are of a. size· and capacity greatly in UNITED DRUG CO. • • 647 643 Findings e:x:cess of that required to package the;· quantity of powder actually p~aced therein .. In addition to the outside container, there is an Inner eoiitainer or filler,· and within this inner container is another &.nd. smaller container, referred to as the powder pouch, in :which the powder is placed. This powde~ pouch is approximately one-hal~ ~he size of the outside container. At one time respondent also used In its packages a piece of corrugated cardboard, which was placed. beneath the powder pouch. Later, the use ofthis corrugated cardboard was discontinued and a piece of smooth cardboard was placed ?n top of the powder pouch. At no time has there been any open- . Jng or window in the outside container which would enable pros- Pective purchasers to determine the size of the powder pouch or the quantity of powder actually contained in the package. In recent ~·ears the package has been wrapped in cellophane, which renders 1\n inspecti~n of the contents of the package impossible unless the Cellophane wrapper is broken. · ·The Commission finds from an examination of the containers, and also from .the testimony of certain members of the public, that the appearance ~f the package is misleading, that the size and ca- Pacity of the outside container are such as to indicate ,that the ' quantity of powder contained within the package is much greater than is actually the fact. . It is insisted by respondent that the custom and practice of the trade is to package cosmetic products in attractive containers, and that. such practice frequently ii1volves the use of containers which d~ not accurately indicate the exact quantity of the product enclosed "W'Within the package. After making due allowance, however,· for these factors, the Commission is nevertheless of the opinion that respondent's package is misleading· in that the size of the outside container is substantially in excess of that which can reasonably he considered necessary for the packaging of the quantity of powder contained therein. .

• PAR. 5. The use by respondent of the method of packaging heretn described has the tendency· and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public with respect to the quantity of powder contained within respondent's packages, and to cause such portion of the public to purchase substantial quantities of respondent's product as a result of the erroneous and mistaken belief so engendered. In consequence thereof, substantial trade has been ·diverted unfairly to respondent from its competitors, ~among whom are those who do not.use a method of packaging which ls misleading to the public.

I I '·I, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISS'ION DECISIONS 648 35F.T.C· Order CONCLUSION Th~ acts and practices of the respondent as herein found are 11~ to the prejudice of the public and of respondent's. competitors, a~ 'constitute unfair methods of cm;npetition in ·commerce within t & intent and. meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade CoJll• mission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answer of re· spondimt (together with a motion to 'dismiss the complaint), testimony. and other evidence in support of and in opposition to the allegati?ns of the complaint taken before a trial examiner of the Commission theretofore duly d~signated by it, report of the trial examiner upon t~e evidence and the exceptions to such report, briefs in support of an~ 10 opposition to the complaint, and oral argument; and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that the ~e· spondent has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade CoDlill15• sion Act.

It is ortf:ered, That the respondent, Uni~ed Drug Co., a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly. or , through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of respondent's face powder and other cosmetic products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Fe • eral Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Offering for sale or selling respondent's products in containers or packages of ·a size or capacity substantially larger than that required for packaging the quantity of product actually contained therein. It i8 further ordered, That the respondent shall, within 60 dars after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report 10 writing setting forth in detail the manner and foriJl in which it bas complied with this order. · It is further ordered, That the respondent's ~otion to dismiss the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, denied. , VIVIAN S. NASH 649 Complaint IN THE MATI'ER OF VIVIAN S. NASH ~OlriPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. II OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEP'£, 26, 1914 ·no~ket 4811. Complaint, Aug. 13,194~-Decision, Oct. 26, 1942 Where an individual, •engaged In the manufai!ture and interstate sale and distribution of certain so·called "Bee-Dew" preparations recommended for hair and scalp treatments and use as deodorant; by means of advertisements in newspapers and periodicals, and by circulars, leaflets, pamphlets, and • Other advertising literature-- (a) Represented, through statements and pictorial representations, including "before and after" depletions, that preparations designated by her as Bee- Dew "Special llalr Grower," "Special U-Gro," "Scalp Oil," "Shampoo," "Pressing Oil" and "U-Gro," provided a remedy for falling hair, baldness, duU hair, scalp irritation, and dandruff, and an effective treatment therefor, use of which would cause new hair to grow ;

~he facts being that her said products had no therapeutic value in excess of cleansing the hair and scalp, allaying itching due to minor irritations, and facilitating the removal of loose dandruff scales, and would not cause new hair to grow; and (b) Represented that her "Bee-Dew 0-No" deodorant preparation would assure complete protection from offensive body odors; ~he facts being protection afforded was for a limited time only, and not com- Plete;

With effect of misleading and deceiving a substantial portion of the purchasing PUblic Into the mistaken belief that such representations were true, thereby Inducing purchase of said products because of such belief: lleld, That such acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were all to tbe prejudice and injury of the public, ·and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in. commerce, Mr. S. F. Rose for the Commission.

Complaint Pursuant to the provisions o£ the Federal Trade Commission Act ~nd by virtue o£ the authority vested in it by said act, the Federal . trade Commission, having reason to believe that Vivian S. Nash, an Individual hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the Provisions of said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a· ~roceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, ereby issues its complaint against said respondent stating its charges in that respect ns follows:

b ~ARA9UAPH 1. Respondent, is an individual, now trading and doing Usllless under the name of Bee-Dew Cosmetic Co., with hE>r prin- 650 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISS'ION DECISIONS 35F.T.C· Complaint cipal place of business located at 703-705 Eas~ Forest Avenue, Detroit, ~~ 7 PAR. 2. The respondent was during the month of October 193 ' imd for more than a year prior thereto, the president of Bee-De'\\' Laboratories, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. For some time subsequent thereto and pri01; to. Febrtl· ary 26, 1941, the said respondent was president of Bee-Dew Productsf Inc., also a corporation org~tnized under the laws of the State 0 Michigan. On said last named date the charter of Bee-Dew Pro~ucts~ Inc., was dissolved. During all the time respondent was pres1denk of said corporations she owned a large percentage of the capital stock d of each of said corporations, and formulated, directed and controlled their policies and activities. Each of said corporations was engage in the sale of a similar line of various hair and face cosmetics. Upon the dissolution of Bee-Dew Products,. Inc., the respondent, under the ~trade name of Bee-Dew Cosmetic Co., has continued to manufacturd sell, and distribute substantially the same preparations as those sol by the corporations of which she was president. d PAR. 3.' The respondent, Vivian S. Nash, an individual, is n·ow ~n ff has been for more than 5' years last past, as stated in the preced111£ · paragraph, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution. 0 certain preparations recammended for hair and scalp treatments, 111• eluding those designated "Bee-Dew Special Hair Grower," "Bee-De'\\' Special U-Gro," "Bee-Dew Scalp Oil," "Bee-Dew Shampoo," "Dee· -Dew Pressing Oil," and ''Bee-Dew U-Gro."

In the course and conduct of her business, the respondent cause~ said preparations, when .sold, to be transported from her place 0d business in the State of Michigan to the purchasers thereof locate f in various other States of the United States and in the District 0 Columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned bereiP has maintained, a course of trade in said preparations, i.n commerce, between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR .. 4;. Resp.onde~t in the ~course a~d c~ndu~t of her busines~ .aforesaid has d1ssemmated and IS now d1ssemmatmg, and has cause and is now causing the dissemination of, false advertisements concerning her said preparations recommended for hair and scalp treat· ment, by the United States mails and by various other means in coJll.· merce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission A.ct; »nil the respondent has ·also disseminated and is now disseminating, "and has caused and is now causing the dissemination of, false ad-ver· tisements concerning said preparations by various means for the ' . purpose of inducing and which are likely to induce, directly or 1n- ~VIVIAN S; :NASH·' 651 Complaint ?directly, the purchase· of said preparations in co~merce as commerce Is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act. Among and typical of, the false, misleading, and deceptive state- ~ents and representations contained in said advertisements, dissem- Inated and caused to be disseminated as hereinabove set forth concerning her said preparations recommended for hair and scalp treatments, by the United States mails, by advertisements inserted in newspapers and periodicals, circulars, leaflets, pamphlets, and other advertising literature, are the following:

Don't surrender to short, broken, harsh hair. Every woman owes it to' herself to hold on to her youth and beauty.

· · Before After' (Picture of a lady (Picture of a lady \Vlth ·short hair.) with long hair.) Use Dee-Dew Scalp Oil, Dee-Dew Shampoo, Bee-Dew Pressing 011, Bee-Dew Sllt!cial U-Oro. , · Bee-Dew Special U-Gro.

Stop that falling hair and scalp irritation .• Remove dandrutr. 'Bee-Dew U-Gro.

llemove dandruff. Stop falli1;g hair and scalp irritations. Bee-Dew Special U-Gro. ' Chetk that fall~ng hair. Bring life to your scalp. Short, stubby, dead looking halt· or even long hair not well l>f'pt is ueyer 8dmlrable. Beautiful hair, then, is the first beauty secret. Bee-Dew Special U-Gro.

Beautiful hair requlrf's a healthy scalp. Thinning hair, bald spots, dull hair and itchy scalp Indicate an unnatural scalp condition. · And concerning Bee-Dew 0-No are the following: • Instant sweetness and complete prote-ction Is yours now, through Bee-Dew 0-No, the perfect and sure deodorant cream. ' Assures certain, instant, complete protection from ofl'ensive bO(ly odors. PAR. 5. Through the· use of the statements and representations hereinabove set forth, and others similar thereto not specifically set out. herein, and by pictorial representations, respondent represents ~nd has represented that her said preparations recommended for use In hair and scalp treatments provide a cure or remedy for falling hair, baldness; dull hair, scalp irritation, and dandruff, and constitute an effective treatment therefor, and that their use will cause new hair to ~~ . ~ .. In the same manner the respondent represents that the preparation advertised and designated as Bee-Dew 0-No will assure complete Protection from offensive body odors.

PAR. 6. The foregoing statements and representations are grossly exaggerated, false and misleading. In truth and in fact, the use of said hair ai1d scalp treatn1ents, either alone or in combination with each' other, do not constitute a cure or ret,nedy for falling hair, bald- • Findings 35F. T. c.

ness, dull hair, scalp irritations or dandruff. Respondent's prepara· tions have no therapeutic value in the treatment of such disorders or · conditions in excess of cleansing the hair and scalp and allaying itch· ing due to minor irritations of the scalp and in facilitating the ~ei moval of accumulated loose dandruff scales. Said preparations wil have no therapeutic value in the treatment of baldness and will not cause new hair to grow. Respondent's preparation Bee-Dew 0-~~ will give protection from body odors for a limited time only and Wll not give complete protection from such odors. . · PAR. 7. 'I11e use by the respondent of the aforesaid false, decep~n'e and misleading statements and representations and others of a sinnlar nature, disseminated as aforesaid, has had and now has, the tende~cY and capacity to, and does, mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such statements and representations are true, and to induce a number of the purchasing public, because of such mistaken and erroneou9 belief, to purchase respondent's said preparations. . PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein alleged are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and constitute unfair and ,deceptive acts and practices in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Report, FINDINGs As TO THE.FACTs, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission .Act, the Federal Trade Co~mission, on the 13th day of August 1942, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the. respondent, Vivian S. Nash, an individual, charging her with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of that act. On the 11th day of September 1942, the respondent filed her answer, in which answer she admited all the ... material allegations of fact set forth in said complaint and waived all intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint and the answer thereto,· and the Commission, having duly considered the matter and being now fully advised in the premises, finds that this proce~dirig is in the interest of the public and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom.

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS . ~ .... PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent is an individual, now trading and doing business under the name of Bee-Dew Cosmetic Co., with her principal place of business located at 703-705 East Forest Avenue, Detroit, Mich· ..

- VIVIAN S. NASH 653 ..i 649 Findings · PAn. 2.· The respondent was, during the month of October 1937, and • for. In ore than a year prior thereto, the president of Bee-Dew Laboratories, a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Michi-' gun. For some time subsequent thereto and prior to February 26, 1941, the said respondent was president -of Bee-Dew Products, Inc., ·also a corporation organized under ·the laws of the State of Michigan. ~n said last named date the charter of Bee-Dew Products, Inc., was. lssolved. During all the time respondent was president of said .corporations she owned a large iJercentage of the capital stock of each of said corporations, and formulated, directed, and controlled their Policies and activities. Each of said corporations was engaged in the sale of a similar line of various hair and face cosmetics. Upon. the dissolution of Bee-Dew Products, Inc., the respondent, under the trade name of Bee-Dew Cosmetic Co., has continued to manufacture, ~ell and distribute substantially the same preparations as those sold Y the corporations of which she was president. h PAn. 3. The respondent, Vivian S. Nash, an individual, is now and as been for more than 5 years last past; as stated in the preceding Paragraph, engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ·~certain preparations recommended for· hair and scalp treatments, ~eluding those designated "Bee-Dew Special Hair Grower," Bee-Dew Pecial U-Gro," "Bee-Dew Scalp Oil," "Bee-Dew Shampoo," "Bee- ~e'_V Pressing Oil," and "Bee-Dew U-Gro," and also of a preparation es1gnated "Bee-Dew O-N o," recommended for use. as a deodorant. In the course and conduct of her business the res}Jondent causes s 'd ba1 • preparations, when sold, to be transported from her place of . Usllless in the State of Michigan to the purchasers thereof located ~ Various other States of the United States and in the District of h columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioneq herein bas ~aintained, a course of trade in said prep~rations in commerce etween and among the various States of the United States· and in the District of Columbia.

PAR, 4. Respondent in the course and conduct of her business afore- ~:.tid has disseminated and is now disseminating, and has caused and ~ now causing the dissemination of, false advertisements concerning er·said preparations by the United States 'inails and by various other ~cans in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade· · 0Inmission Act; aytd the respondent has also disseminated and is · 11,0W disseminating, and has caused and is now causing the dissemination of, false advertisements concerning said prepttrations by various ~cans for the purpose -of inducing and which .are likely to 'induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of said preparations in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trad~ Commission Act. 500749m--43--vo1.35----44 654 FEDERAL TRADE CQMMISS'ION DECISIONS Findings 35F. T.C.

Among and typical of the false, misleading, and deceptive state· ments and representations contained in said advertisements disseJll· inaed and caused 'to be disseminated, as hereinabove set forth, by the United States mails, by advertisements inserted in newspapers and periodicals, and by circulars, leaflets, pamphlets and other adver· tising literature, are the following: · ' Don't surrender to short, broken, harsh hair. Every woman owes it to herself to hold on to her youth and beauty.

Before After (Picture of a lady (Picture of a Iade· with short hair.) . with long h!lir.) Use Bee-Dew Scalp Oil, Bee-Dew Shampoo, Bee-Dew Pressing Oil, Bee-Ve1f · Special U-Gro. · Bee-Dew Special U·Gro Stop that fulling hair and scalp h·ritatlon. Remove dandrutr. Check that falling hair. Bring life to your scalp. Short stubby, dead looking hair or even long hair not well kept is ne\'er admirable. Beautiful hair, then, Is the first beauty secret. Beautiful hair requires a healthy scalp. Thinning hair, bald spots, dull bllir and Itchy scalp indicate an unnatural scalp condition. Bee-Dew U-Gro Remove dandrutr. Stop falling hair and scalp irritations. Bee-Dew 0-No Instant sweetness and complete protection is yours now,· through Bee-ve« 0-No, the perfect and sure deodorant cream.

Assures certain, Instant, complete protection· from otrensive body odors. PAR. 5. Through the use of the statements and ~epresentations here~ inabove set forth and others similar thereto not specifically set olld herein, and by pictorial representations, respondent represents 11~ has represented that her said preparations recommended for use ~ 11 hair and scalp treatments provide a cure or remedy for falling hair, baldness, dull hair, scalp irritation, and dandruff, and constitute all effective treatment therefor, and that their use will cause new ~air to grow. In the same manner, the respondent represents that the prep· aration advertised and designated as Dee-Dew 0-No will assure complete protection from offensive body odors. 1 PAR. 6. The foregoing statements and representations are gross { ex~gge~ated, false, and misl~ading: In truth an~ in fac~, tl:e us~. 0}1 said halr and scalp preparations, e~ther alone or m combmatwn " 1~ one another, does not constitute a cure or remedy for falling hall': haldness, dull hair, scalp irritations, or dandruff., Respondent's prep arations have rio therapeutic value in the treatment of such disor~er! or conditions in excess of cleansing the hair and scalp, and allay 1~" itching due to minor irritations of the scalp, an~ in facilitating t ·U removal of accumulated loose dandruff scales. Said preparation,s "'~t have no therapeutic value in the treatment of baldness and will Jl . VIVIAN: S. N: ASH 655 649 Order cause new hair .to grow. Respondent's prep~ration Bee-Dew 0-No , Will give protection from body odors for a limited time only, and will not give complete protection from such odors. · PAR. 7. The use by the respondent of the afore,said, false, deceptive, and misleading statements and representations, and others of a simi- .lar nature, disseminated as aforesaid, has had and now has the tendency and capacity to and does mislead and deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that such sfatements and representations are true, and to induce a number of the· purchasing public,· because of such erroneous and mistaken belief, to purchase respondent's said preparations. (X)NCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondent as herein found are all to the prejudice and injury of the public, and constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices 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 and the answer of the r~spondent, ih which answer respondent admits all the material allega- .hons of fact set forth in said complaint and st.ates that she waives aU intervening procedure and further hearing as to said facts, 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 i8 ordered that the respondent, Viv~an S. Nash, individually and trading under the name of Dee-Dew Cosmetic Co., or trading under any other name, and her agents, representatives, and employees, directly or· through· any corporate or other device, in cdnnection with t?e. offering for sale, sale, and distribution of her cosmetic preparations 'designated "Bee-Dew Special Hair Grower," "Dee-Dew Special li-Gro," "Dee-Dew Scalp Oil," ·"Dee-Dew . Shampoo," "Dee-Dew Pressing Oil," "Bee-Dew U-Gro," and "Dee.-De~ 0-No,"'or any other Preparations composed of substantially sin,iilar ingredients or Possessing substantially similar properties, whether sold under the same names or under any other names, do forthwith cease and desist from directly or indirectly: · · 1. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertisement by means of the United States mails or by any means in commerce, Order 35F. T.C.

as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which advertisement, · · (a) represents, directly or by implication, that the preparati~ns designated "Bee-Dew Special Hair Grower," "Bee-Dew Special U-Gro" "Bee-Dew Scalp Oil" ·"Bee-Dew Shampoo" "Bee-Dew Pressing' Oil," and "Bee-Dew U-Gro,"' either when used' alone or ID.. combination with one or more of the others, ·constitute a cure or remedy for falling hair, baldness, dull hair, scalp irritation, or danf druff, or that any of such preparations will promote the growth 0 new hair or ha.ve any effect upon the growth of hair; (b) x:represents, directly or by implication, that said preparations "Bee-Dew Special Hair Grower," "Bee-Dew Special U-Gro," "Bee· Dew Scalp Oil," "Bee-Dew Shampoo," "Bee-Dew Pressing Oil," and "Dee-Dew U-Gro" have any therapeutic values in the treatment of falling hair, baldness, dull hair, scalp irritation, or dandruff, in excess of cleansing the hair and scalp, allaying itching due to minor scalp irritations, and facilitating the removal of loose dandruff scales; . (c) uses the word "grow" or "grower," or any other word which is similar thereto either in spelling or in phonetics, to designate ~r describe the preparations now designated "Bee-Dew Special Jlair Grower," "Bee-Dew Special U-Gro," and "Bee-Dew U-Gro," or otherwise represents that any of said preparations has any effect upon the growth of hair; or ' ·(d) represents, directly or by implication, that .the preparation "Bee-Dew 0-No'' will give complete protection from offensive body odors, or that it will have any effect in excess of affording temporary protection from such odors. . 2. Disseminating or causing to be disseminated any advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to indue~, directly or indirectly, the purchase in commerce, as "commerce&" IS defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, of respondent's cos· metic preparations, which advertisement contains any'representation prohibited in paragraph 1 hereof.

It is further ordered, That the respondent shall, within 60 days after service upon her of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing sl:)tting forth in detail the manner and form in which she has complied~ with this order, UTAH BE1VERAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. 657 Complaint