Schenck, Frederick J

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

IN THE ~ATTER OF FREDERICK J. SCHENCK AND ~ARY V. SCHENCK, TRADING AS RUB-R-LYFE COMPANY COMPLAINT, FINDINGS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION . OF SEC. 6 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 4-775. Cumplaint, June £4-, 1942-Decision, Aug. £6, 194-4- Where two individuals engaged in the interstate sale and distribution of their "Rub- R-Lyfe" preparation for the treatment of rubber products; through statements in leaflets, circulars and other written or printed matter, directly and by implication- ,Falsely represented that said preparation softened hardest rubber for commercial use; preserved and renovated rubber against atmospheric conditions; stopped checking, cracking, oxidation, or frictional heat; and restored the resiliency and original elasticity of rubber; · With tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial number of the purchasing public into the erroneous belief that said representations were true, whereby it was induced to purchase substantial quantities of their said product: II eld, That said acts and practices, under the circumstances set forth, were all to the .. prejudice and injury of the public, and constituted unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. · Mr. Carrel F. Rhodes for the Commission.

Ogden & Ogden, of Seattle, Wash., for respondents. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the Federal Trade Com· mission, having reason to believe that Frederick J. Schenck and ~ary V. Schenck, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provi· sions of said act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its com· plaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents, Frederick J. Schenck and Mary V. Schenck, jointly and severally, trading as Rub-R-Lyfe Co., have their principal office and place of business at 1025 ~medical·Dental Building, Seattle, Wash.

PAR. 2. Respondents now are, and for more than three years last past, have been engaged in the business of selling a preparation under the trade name "Rub-R-Lyfe" for the treatment of rubber products. Respond· ents cause said product when sold to be shipped from their place of busi· ness in the State of Washington to the purchasers thereof at their re· spective points of location in States other than the State of Washington and in the District of Columbia. Respondents now maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in said prepara· tion in commerce between and among the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

RUB-R-LYFE CO. 109 108 Complaint PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their said preparation by the purchasing public, respondents, in leaflets, circulars, and other written or Printed matter, have made many false, misleading and deceptive statements and representations with reference to its said preparation. Among, and typical of, the statements and representations used and caused to be disseminated are the following: · . The scientific miracle for revitalizing rubber-old or new. Softens hardest rubber for commercial use.

Tested and approved by leading chemists-.

Preserves and renovates rubber against atmospheric conditions. Stops checking-cracking.

Stops checking, oxidation and frictional heat, tires' worst enemies. Restores resiliency of rubber.

Restores original elasticity. . . PAR. 4. By the use of the statements and representations hereinabove set forth and others similar thereto not specifically set out herein, respondents directly and by implication represent and have represented to customers and prospective customers that its preparation "Rub-R-Lyfe" preserves and renovates rubber against atmospheric conditions; stops checking, cracking, .oxidation or frictional heat; restores resiliency of rubber; softens hardest rubber for commercial use; restores original elasticity of rubber; has been tested and approved by leading chemists; and that use of said preparation is a competent scientific method for revitalizing old or new rubber.

PAR. 5. The statements and representations so made and used by respondents are grossly exaggerated, false, deceptive and misleading. In truth and in fact, respondents' preparation "Rub-R-Lyfe" will not preserve and renovate rubber against atmospheric conditions, will not stop checking or cracking or oxidation or frictional heat, nor will it restore resiliency of rubber or soften hardest rubber for commercial use. Respondents' preparation will not restore the original elasticity to rubber, and its Use does not constitute a competent scientific method for revitalizing old or new rubber. Said preparation has not been tested and approved by leading chemists. · · PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondent as hereinabove set forth have had and now have the tendency and capacity to and do mislead and deceive a substantial number of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations are true. As a result of such erroneous and mistaken belief engendered as herein set forth, the purchasing public has been induced to and has purchased substantial quantities of respondents' product.

PAR. 7. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, 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.

11 0 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Findings 39 F. T. C.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, AND ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission on June 24, 1942, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondents, Frederick J. Schenck and Mary V. Schenck, trading as Rub-R-Lyfe Co., charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said act. Subsequent thereto, on July 16, 1942, the respondents filed their answer to said complaint. Thereafter a stipulation, approved by the Commission on June 1, 1943, was entered into by the respondents and Richard P. Whiteley, Assistant Chief Counsel for the Commission, by: which it was stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the Commission, that the facts stipulated may be made a part of the record herein and may be taken as the facts in this proceeding and in lieu of testimony in support of charges stated in the complaint or in opposition thereto; that the Commission may proceed upon said statement of facts to make its findings as to the facts (including inferences which it may draw from the said stipulated facts and its conclusion based thereon), and enter its order disposing of the proceeding without the presentation of oral arguments or ~he filing of briefs. Thereafter this proceeding regularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on said complaint, answer, and the facts stipulated; 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 as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom. FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents, Frederick J. Schenck and Mary V. Schenck, jointly and severally, trading as Rub-R-Lyfe Co., have their principal office and place of business at 1025 Medical-Dental Building, Seattle, Wash.

PAR. 2. Respondents now are and for more than t}tree years last past have been engaged in the business of selling a preparation under the trade name "Rub-R-Lyfe" for the treatment of rubber products. Respondents cause said product, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of Washington to purchasers at their respective points of location in States other than the State of Washington and in the District of Columbia. Respondents now maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in said preparation in commerce between and among the several States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their aforesaid business and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of said preparation by the purchasing public, respondents, in leaflets, circulars and other written or printed matter, have made various statements and representations with reference to their said preparation. Among Rnrl typical of such statements and representations were the followin.l!':

RUB-R-LYFE CO. 111 108 Order Softens hardest rubber for commercial use.

Preserves and renovates rubber against atmospheric conditions, Stops checking-cracking.

Stops checking, oxidation and frictional heat, tires' worst enemies. Restores resiliency of rubber.

Restores original elasticity.

PAR. 4. By the use of the statements and representations hereinabove set forth and others similar thereto not specifically set out herein, respondents, directly and by implication, have represented to customers and prospective customers that said preparation softens hardest rubber for commercial use; that it preserves and renovates rubber against atmospheric conditions; that it stops checking, cracking, oxidation, or frictional heat; and that it restores the original resiliency or elasticity of rubber. PAR. 5. The statements and representations so made and used by respondents are grossly exaggerated, deceptive, and misleading. In truth and in fact, respondents' preparation will not soften hardest rubber for commercial use; it will not preserve or renovate rubber against atmospheric conditions; it will not stop checking, cracking, oxidation, or fric-. tional heat; nor will it restore the original resiliency or elasticity of rubber. PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondents, as hereinabove set forth, have had the tendency and capacity to mislead and deceive a substantial number of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations were true. As a result of such erroneous and mistaken belief, the purchasing public has been induced to purchase substantial quantities of respondents' product "Rub-R- Lyfe."

CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of the respondents, 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, the answer of respondents, and a stipulation as to the facts entered into between the respondents herein and Richard P. Whiteley, Assistant Chief Counsel for the Commission, which provides among other things that, without further evidence or other intervening procedure, the Commission may issue and serve upon the respondents herein findings as to the facts and conclusion based thereon and an order disposing of the proceeding; and the Commis:,!on having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that said respondents have violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It is ordered, That the respondents, Frederick J. Schenck and Mary V. Schenck, individually, and trading as Rub-R-Lyfe Co., or trading under '\ny other name. and their agents, representatives, and employees, directly . 112 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 39 F. T, C.

or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale and distribution in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, of respondents' product designated "Rub-R-Lyfe," or any other product of substantially similar composition or possessing substantially similar properties, whether sold under the same name or any other name, do forthwith cease and desist from representing, directly or indirectly:

1. That said product softens hardest rubber for commercial use. 2. That said product preserves or renovates rubber against atmospheric conditions, or that it stops checking, cracking, oxidation, or frictional heat in r4bber.

3. That said product restores the original resiliency or original elasticity of rubber.

It is further ordered, That the respondents shall, within 60 days after service upon them of this order, file with the Cominission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. · GRATER-BODEY CO., ET AL. 113 Syllabus