Hastings Potato Growers Association

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

IN THE l\fA TTER OF HASTINGS POTATO GRO,VERS ASSOCIATION COl\IPLAIXT, SETTLEl\IENT, FINDINGS, A1i, D ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 2 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED OCT. 15 , 1914 , AS Al\fENDED BY AND ACT APPROVED JUNE 19, 1936 Docket 5921. Complaint, Sept. 10, 1951-Deoision, Jan. , 1952 Where a cooperative corporation engaged in selling potatoes and other vegetables produced in Florida by its members, (1) to buyers who usually purchased in small volumes, through brokers to whom it paid brokerage fees varying from three to ten cents per hundredweight; (2) to some of such brokers who: also purchased for their own accounts for resale; and (3) directly to other buyers, including some chain-store organizations who usually purchased in larger volumes for use or resale- (a) Paid a fee as brokerage to buying brokers in connection with the sale of potatoes to them in the same manner as it paid them a fee for effecting sales, as its agents, to small buyers, and in the same amounts, through invoicing them at the same prices as the;y charged small buyers and paying bills rendered to the association for brokerage fees in connection with sales made to said brokers for their own account for resale, as well as for fees earned for effecting sales as the association s agent to small buyers; (b) Paid such a fee also to buying brokers in connection with other sales potatoes through the practice of charging them prices which were lower than those charged small buyers by the amount of the brokerage fees that it paid them for effecting sales to the small buyers-in some of such transactions, invoicing buying brokers at such lower prices, and in other transactions invoicing the buying brokers tile same prices as those charged small buyers but permitting them to deduct the necessary discount for allowances; and (c) Charged direct buyers, including some chain-store organizations lower prices than it charged small buyers, through either invoicing such buyers at prices which were lower by the amount of the brokerage fees or invoicing them at the same prices charged small bu;yel's and permitting them to make the necessary deduction:

Held That said association, in making such payments of fees as brokerage and such charging of lower prices, paid or granted something of yalue as a commission, brokerage or other compensation in lieu thereof, in connection \with the sale of vegetables, to the other p:U'ties to such transactions or to their agents, etc., who were acting in their behalf, and that such acts and practices violated subsection (c) of Sec. 2 of the Clayton Act as amended. Before M1.. F?'ank Hie?' trial examiner.

1111'. P-ete1'J. Dlas and 1111' . Richard E. Ely for the Commission. 1111'. 0 ounts Johnson of Tampa, Fl a., for respondent. , : HASTINGS POTATO GROWERS ASSN. 747 746 ' Complaint COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent, named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of section 2 of the Clayton Act U. S. C. Title 15, section 13) as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved June 19, 1936, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Hastings Potato Growers Association hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Association, is a cooperative corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal office and p lace of business located at Hastings, Florida. PAR. 2. The Association is now, ai1d continuously for many years last past has been engaged in the business of selling potatoes and in Florida by its members to three princi-palother vegetableskindsproducedof buyers. The Association employs brokers who, as its agents, sell such vegetables to most buyers (hereinafter sometimes referred to as small buyers) who usually purchase in smaller volumes. As compensation for services rendered in effecting such sales to small buyers, the Assoelation pays such brokers a brokerage fee. Such brokerage fees vary from about three cents to ten Gents per hundredweight. In addition to selling sneh vegetables to small buyers as agents the Assoeiation, some of such brokers (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "buying brokers ) also purchase such vegetables frolll the Association for their own accounts for resale. The Association also sells vegetables directly to other buyers, including some chain-store organizations (hereinafter sometimes referred to as direct buyers) who usually purchase in larger volumes for their own account for use or resale.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of such business, the Association causes such vegetables so sold to be transported from its place of business or from elsewhere in Florida to the places of business of such buyers, some of which are located in Florida and some of which are located elsewhere in the United States. All sales of vegetables by the Assoeiation hereinafter referred to involved such transportation from Florida to sl)ch buyers with places of business located elsewhere and occurred during approximately the three or four years last past. PAR. 4. (A) The Assoeiation pays a fee as brokerage to buying brokers in connection with the sale of potatoes to them in the same manner asit pays a brokerage fee to them and other brokers for ef- 748 FEDERAL TRADE, COMJVnSSION DECISIONS Complaint 48 F. T. C.

fecting sales, as its Rgents, to small buyers, and in the same or substantially the same amounts. In these transactions the Association invoices buying brokers, and they remit to the Association, at prices which are the same as those charged small buyers; but the buying brokers render to the Association, and the Association pays, bills which set forth, in addition to brokerage fees earned for effecting sales, as it agents, to small buyers, fees as brokerage in connection with such sales made to them for their own aeeount for resale or which set forth only the latter.

(B) In connection with other sales of potatoes to buying brokers instead of the Association making the payments of fees as brokerage alleged in subparagraph (A) above, it charges them prices which are lower than those charged small buyers. The prices are lower by amonntswhich are the same or substantially the same as the brokerage fees that the Association pa.ys to its brokers for effeeting sales, as its agents, to small buyers.

In some of these transactions, the Assoeiation invoices buying brokers, and they remit to the Association, at such lower prices. When this has been done, the Association sometimes indieates the fact by a notation on the invoice that the price is "net. In other of these transactions, the Association invoices buying brokers at prices which are the same as those charged small buyers but the buying brokers remit to the Association at such lower prices being permitted by the Assoeiation to deduct the necessary discount or allowance. ,Vhen this is to be done, the Association sometimes indicates the fact by omitting the notation "net" on the invoice. (C) In connec.tion with sales of potatoes to direct buyers, instead of the Association making the payments of fees as brokerage alleged in subparagraph (A) above, it charge.s them prices which are lower' , than those charged small buyers. 1'he prices are lower by amounts which are same or substantially the same. as the broke.ra2:e fees that the. Association pays to its brokers for effecting sa les, as its agents, to, small buyers.

, Such lower prices are charged dirpet buyers in the same manner asthey are charged buying brokers as alleged in subparagraph (B) above.

P.. 5. In making payments of feet:; as brokerage, asa.alleged in Paragraph Four (A), and in charging lower prices, as alleged in Paragraps ~our (B) and Four (C), the Association paid or granted, in the course and conduct of its business in eoml11erce, something of valueas a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, and allowances and discounts in lieu thereof, in connection with the sale of vegetables, to' the. other parties to such transactions, or to their agents, representa- HASTINGS POTATO GROWERS ASSN. 749 746 Consent Settlement tives or other intermediaries therein who were acting in fact for in behalf, or subj ect to the direct 01' indirect control of such other PAR. 6. The acts and practices of the respondent as above allegedparties. violate subsection (c) of section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (U. S. C. Title 15, Sec~ion 13). CONSENT SETTLEj)IENT 1 Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes " approved October 15, 1914, (the Clayton Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19, 1936 (the Robinson-Patman Act) the Federal Trade Commission, on September 10, 1951, issued and subsequently served its complaint on the respondent named in the caption hereof, charging it with violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of said Clayton Act as amended. The respondent, desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the consent settlement procedure provided in Rule V of the Commission Rules of Practic.e, solely for the purposes of this proceeding, any review thereof, and the enforc.ement of the order consented to, and conditioned upon the Commission s ac.ceptance of the consent settlement hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of the answer to said complaint heretofore filed and which, upon acc.eptanc.e by the Commission of this settlement, is to be withdrawn from the record, hereby: 1. Admits all the jurisdictional allegations . set forth in the complaint.

2. Consents that the Commission may enter the matters hereinafter set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist. It is understood that the respondent, in consenting to the Commission s entry of said findings as to the facts, conclusion and order to c.ease and desist, specifically refrains from admitting or of the acts or practices stateddenying that it has engaged in any therein to be in violation of law.

1 The Commission s "Notice" announcing and promulgating the consent settlement as published herewith, follows:

The consent settlement tendered by the parties in this proceeding, a copy of which i~ served herewith, WfiR acceptf'd by the Commission on January 31, 1952 , and ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist.

It is accordingly onrered, That the respondent, Hastings Potato Growers Association a corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this notice and order file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist contained in the consent settlement entered in disposition of this proceeding. , .

750 FEDERAL TRADE, COMl"\lission DECISIONS Findings 48 F. T. C.

3. Agrees that this consent settlement may be set aside in whole or in part under the conditions and in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of Rule V of the Commission s Rules of Practice. The admitted jurisdictional facts, the statement of the acts and practices which the Commission had reason to believe -were unlawful the conclusion based thereon, and the order to cease and desist, all of which the respondent consents may be enter' ed herein-in final disposition of this proceeding, are as follows:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Hastings Potato Growers Association hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Association, is a cooperative corporation, organized, existing and doing business under and virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal office and place of business located at Hastings, Florida. PAR. 2. The Association is now, and continuously for many years last past has been engaged in the business of selling potatoes and other vegetables produced in Florida by its members to three principal kinds of buyers.

The Association employs brokers -who, as its agents, sell such vegetables to most buyers (hereinafter sometimes referred to as small buyers) who usually purchase in smaller volumes. As compensation for services rendered in effecting such sales to small buyers, the Association pays such brokers a brokerage fee. Such brokerage fees vary from about three cents to ten cents per hundredweight. In addition to selling such vegetables to small buyers as agents of the Association, some of such brokers (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "buying brokers ) also pure-hase such vegetables from the Assoeiation for their own accounts for resale.

The Association also sells vegetables directly to other buyers, including some chain store organizations (hereinafter sometimes referred to as direct buyers) who usually purchase in larger volumes for their own account for use or resale. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of such business, the Association ('auses such vegetables so sold to be transported from its place of business or from elsewhere in Florida to the places of business of such buyers, some of which are located in Florida and some of which are located elsewhere in the United States. All sales of vegetables by the Association hereinafter referred to involved such transportation from Florida to such buyers with places of business located elsewhere and occurred during approximately the three or four years last past. PAR. 4. (A) The Association pays a fee as brokerage to buying brokers in connection with the sale of potatoes to them in the same HASTINGS POTATO GROWERS ASSN. 751 746 Findings manner as it pays a brokerage fee to them and other brokers for effecting sales, as its agents, to small buyers, and in the same or substantially the same amounts. In these transactions the Association invoices buying brokers, and they remit to the Association, at prices which are the same as those charged small buyers; but the buying brokers render to the Association, and the Association pays, bills which set forth in addition to brokerage fees earned for effecting sales, asits agents to small buyers, fees as brokerage in connection with such sales made to them for their own account for resale or "\which set forth only the J Hotter.

(B) In connection ,with other sales of potatoes to buying brokers instead of the Association making the payments of fees as brokerage alleged in subparagraph (A) above, it charges them prices which are lower than those charged small buyers. The prices are lower by amounts which are the same or substantially the same as the brokerage fees that the Association pays to its brokers for effecting sales, as its agents, to small buyers.

In some of these transactions, the Association invoices buying brokers, and they remit to the Association, at such lower prices. 'Vhen this has been done, the Association sometimes indicates the fact by a notation on the invoice that the price is "net." In other of these transactions, the Association invoices buying brokers at prices which are the same as those charged small buyers but the buying brokers remit to the Association at such lower prices being permitted by the Association to deduct the necessary discount or allowance. When this is to be done, the Association sometimes indicates the fact by omitting the notation "nee' on the invoice. (C) In connection with sales of potatoes to direct buyers, instead of the Association making the payments of fees as brokerage alleged in subparagraph (A) above, it charges them prices which are lower than those charged small buyers. The prices are lower by amounts which are the same or substantially the same as the brokerage fees that the Association pays to its brokers for effecting sales, as its agents to small buyers.

Such lower prices are charged direct buyers in the same 1l1.anner as they are charged buying brokers as alleged in subparagraph (B) above.

PAR. 5. In making payments of fees as brokerage, as alleged in Paragraph Four (A), and in charging lower prices, as alleged in Paragraphs Foul' (B) and Foul' (C), the Association paid or granted in the course and conduct of its business in commerce, something of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, and allowances and discounts in lieu thereof, in connection with the sale of vege- 21 :::840-34-- ::;1 ;

752 FEDE:RAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 48 F. T.

tables, to the other parties to such transactions, or to their agents representatives or other intermediaries therein who were acting in fact for or in behalf, or subject to the direct or indirect control, of such other parties.

CONCLUSION The acts and practices of the respondent ~s above found violate subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (U. S. C. Title 15, Section 13). ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST I t is onlered That the respondent Hastings Potato Growers Asso- . ciation, a corporation, and its officers, directors, agents or employees directly or through any corporate or any other device, in conllection with the sale of potatoes or any other vegetable in interstate commerce, do forthwith cease and desist :from: 1. :Making payments to brokers on purchases for their own accounts in amounts which are the same as the amounts of brokerage fees paid to brokers effecting sales, as agents: to other purchasers, or in any other amounts which are also paid as brokerage, whether such payments are made upon being billed therefor or otherwise; 2. Granting a discount or allowance to any purchaser which makes the price to such purchaser lower than the prices at which sales are made to other purchasers, by any amount which is the same as the amount of brokerage fees paid to brokeI's effecting sales, as agents to such other purchasers, or lower in any other amounts which are also in lieu of brokerage, whether such lower' prices are charged by invoicing at "net" prices, or by permitting the purchasers to make a deduction from invoiced prices in remitting payment, or by any other device;

3. Paying 01 granting anything of value as a commission, brokerage other compensation or allowance or discount in lieu thereof to the other parties to such transactions, or to their agents, representatives or other intermediaries therein who in fact act for or in behalf, or are subj ect to the direct or indirect control, of such other parties. (sgd) HASTINGS POTATO GROWERS ASSOCIATION Hastings Potato Growers. Association By (sgd) COUNTS ~JOI-INSON Its Attorney.

(Date) LV 01)e'lnOe7' BO 1951.

The foregoing consent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Commission and ordered entered of record on this the 31st day of January 1952.

PROFESSIONAL REMINDER SERVICE 753 Complaint IN THE ~IAITER ALBERT COHN AND IRVING AND LOUIS KURASH DOING. BUSINESS AS PROFESSIONAL RE1HINDER SERVICE. COMPLAINT, DECISION, FINDINGS, AND ORDERS IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED' VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docl~et 5762. CoJr/,plaint, Apt'. 1950-Decision, Feb. , 1952 Judicial notice is taken of the fact that the words "engraving" and "engraved" when used in connection with or descriptive of business or social stationery, have specific meanings. Pecleral T'trade Commission v. Benton Announce': mc/lts, 11lc. 1:30 F. (2d) 254; 35 li'. T. C. 941; 3 S. & D. 495. Where three partners engaged in the printing of greeting cards and in the interstate sale and distribution tl1ereof- Represented through statements in circulars, in which were included the terms pJateless engraved" and "plateless engraving, that their greeting cards were engraved by some process in which a plate was not used; The facts being that said cards were not engra,ed but were printed by the thermographic process in which, following regular printing, the \vet ink is dusted with a powdered chemical and baked, with resulting raised letter effect resembling elwnwing;

With effect of misleading a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous belief that said cards were engraved, and of inducing its purchase thereof in such belief; and with capacity and tendency so to do: Held That such 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.

Before ';.11-7'. J. Earl Cox hearing examiner. fri/'. Edward F. Downs for the Commission. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission A0.\. and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said act, the Fec1era~ Trade Commission, having reason to believe Albert. Cohn, Irving I\::urash, and Louis Kurash doing business as Professional Reminder Service, a copartnership, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions 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 complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondents Albert Cohn, Irving ICurash and Louis ICurash are copartners doing business under the name of Professional Reminder Service with their principal office and place of business at 42 East 23d Street, New York, New York.

754 FEDERAL TRADE CO~IMISSION DECISIONS Complaint. 48 F. T. C.

. PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for several years last past have been, engaged in the printing of greeting cards and in the sale and distribution thereof in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondents cause said cards, when sold, to be transported from their said place of business in the State of N ~w York to the purchasers thereof, many of whom were and are located ill States of the United States other than the State of New York and in the District of Columbia. Respondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in said cards in commerce between and among the variolls States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business as aforesaid, and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their said greeting cards in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, respondents have printed and circulated throughout the several States to prospective customers a circular containing, among other things, the following statement:

Our rates are lfl1sonl1hle. All C'l1lds f1l'e plntelp:,:;,: engel1yecl on white yellull1 paper as per enclosed sample.

The bottom portioll of this circul ar is an order blank to be detached from the upper portion and filled in as per the desired order, and the enclosed sample referred to in the circular is a sample of respondents greeting cards with the lettering thereon having a raised appearance. PAR. 4. Respondents, through the use. of the term "plateless enengraved by somegraved" represented that their greeting cards were process in which a plate was not used.

Said representation was false, misleading and deceptive. Respondeilts' cards were not engraved but "' ere printed by what is known as the thermographic process. This process consists of regular printing, after which the wet ink is dusted with a chemical in powdered form and then baked, which causes the chemical to melt, fuse with ink, become solid and present a raised letter effect having the appearance of engra vlng.

PAR. 5. The, use by respondents of the term "plnteless engraved" as aforesaid had the tendency and capacity ' to mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said greeting cards were engraved and because of such erroneous and mistaken belief to purchase respondents' said greeting cards.

PAR. 6. 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. PROFESSIONAL REMINDER SERVICE 755 753 Findings DECISION OF THE CO~BIISSION Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rules of Practice and as set forth in the Commission s "Decision of the Commission and Order to File Report of Compliance, dated February 11, 1952 the initial decision in the instant matter of Hearing Exmniner J. Earl Cox, as set out as follows, became on that date. the decision of theCommission. INITIAL DECISION BY J. EARL cox HEARING EXAl\IINER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act the Federal Trade Commission on April 7, 1950, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondents Albert Cohn, Irving Kurash and Louis Kurash, doing business as Professional Reminder Service, a copartnership, charging them with the use of unfair and deceptive ads and practices in commerce in violation of the provisions of said Act. After respondents filed their answer in this proceeding, a stipulation was entered into whereby it was stipulated and agreed that a statement of facts signed and executed by respondents Albert Cohn, Irving Kurash and Louis ICurash and Edward F. Downs, counsel supporting the eOlnplaint for the Federal Trade Commission, may be. taken as the fads in this proceeding and in lieu of testimony in support of and in opposition to the charges stated in the complaint, and that the said statement of facts may serve as the basis for findings as to the facts and eonclu sion based thereon and order disposing of the proceeding, :without presentation of proposed findings and conclusions or oral argument. Said stipulation as to the fads expressly provides that upon appeal to or review by the Commission, said stipulation may be set aside by the Comnlission and this Ina tter remanded for further proeeBdings under the complaint. Thereafter, this proceeding regularly eame on for final consideration by said hearing examiner upon the eomplaint, answer, and stipulation, said stipulation having been approved by the hearing examiner, who, after duly considering the record herein, finds that this proceeding is in the interest of the publiCo and Inakes the following findings as to the facts, conclusion drawn there. from, and order:

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS P ARAGRAPIf 1. Respondents Albert Cohn, Irving Kurash and Louis Kurash are eopartners doing business under the name of Professional Reminder Service, with their principal office and place of business at 4-2 East 23rd Street, New York, New York. Findings 48 F. T. C.

PAR. 2. Respondents are now, and for several years last past have been, engaged in the printing of greeting cards and in the sale and distribution thereof in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia. Respondents cause said cards, when sold, to be transported from their said place of business in the State of New York to the purchasers thereof, many of whom were and are located in States of the United States other than the State of New York and in the District of Columbia. Respondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein have maintained, a course of trade in saiel cards in commerce between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid and for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their said greeting cards in commerce, as "COnll11erce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, respondents have printed and circulated throughout the United States to prospective customers a circular containing, among other things, the following statement: Our rates are reasonable. All cards are plateless engra '.ed on white vellum paper as pel' enclosed sample.

The bottom portion of this circular bears an order blank to be detached from the upper portion and filled in as per the desired order. The enclosed sample referred to in the circular is one of respondents greeting cards with the lettering thereon having a raised appearance. Since December 1948 respondent3 have issued the circulars containing the statement quoted above'- with an asterisk following the term "plateless engraved. This asterisk refers to a footnote contained in the circular, which reads aE; follows: Plateless engraving is a modern printin~~ process without special plates or dies which is called by various names but is also commonly known as the thermographic process. It creates engraved effects which make it indistinguishable from engraving from 5)Jecial plates or dies except to an expert in the field. PAR. 4. The respondents through the use of these statements and especially through the use of the terms "plateless engraved" and plateless engraving" having represented that their greeting cards were and are engraved by some process in which a plate is not used. PAR. 5. Said representations are false, misleading and deceptive. Respondents' cards are not engraved but are printed by what is known as the tllermographic process. This process consists of regular printing, after which the wet ink is dusted with a chemical in powdered form and then baked, which causes the chemical to melt, fuse with the ink, become solid and present a raised letter effect having the appearance of engraving.

.

PROFESSIONAL REMINDER SERVICE 757 753 Order PAR. 6. , The use by respondents of the statements set forth above and especially of the terms "plateless engraved" and "plateless engraving had, and now has, the tendency and capacity to, and did, and does mislead a substantial portion of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said greeting cards are engraved and because spondents' said of such erroneousgreetingand mistakencards.belief to purchase re- PAR. 7. Judicial notice is taken of the fact that the words "engraving" and "engraved " when used in connection with or deseriptive business or soeial stationery, have specific meanings: The word engraving," as it is used in the graphic arts, may be applied either to an engraved intaglio plate upon which letters, words, or designs have been incised or cut or to the impressions made from such a plate. Such plates are cut or incised by hand, by machine, by etching with acid, by a transfer from other engraving, and by other means, but in all cases the letters, words or designs so to be produced upon stationery are cut below the surface of the plate. To make impressions from such a plate, the ink is applied to the plate then the plate is wiped so that the ink remains only in the lines cut below the surface. The inked plate is then put upon a piece of stationery or article to engraved; and pressure is applied sufficient to force the surface of the stationery into the lines cut in the plate, causing the ink in such lines to adhere to the paper on which the impression is tobe made. The words "engraving" and "engraved " when used in connection with, or descriptive business or social stationery, mean, and the trade and consuming public understand, and for many years have understood them to mean, that the stationery products so being referred to or described contain letters, words, or designs which are raised from the general plane of the stationery surface and are in relief, and are the result of the application, under pressure, of metal plates which have been specially engrave?, cut or carved for, and are used in the production of such stationery by the process more particularly described in the foregoing paragraph. (Fedeml Trade Commission v. Benton Annou1Wements, Inc. 31 F. T. C. 882, affirmed 130 F. (2d) 254, CCA 2d Circuit, July 6, 1942. ) CONCLUSION The aforesaid acts and practices of 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 Ad. ORDER I t is ordered That the respondents, Albert Cohn, Irving Kurash and Louis Kurash, individually and as partners, doing business as Professional Reminder Serviee, their representatives, agents and employees directly or indirectly, through any corporate or other device, in connection with the offering for sale, sale, and distribution of stationery 758 FEDERAL TRADE CO:rvrldISSION DECISIONS Order 48 F. '1'. C.

products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: (1) Using the words "engraved" or " ngraving," either alone or in conjunction with any other word or words, to designate, describe or refer to stationery products on which the lettering, inscriptions or designs have been printed from inked typefaces and have been given a raised effect by an embossing process in which no plates have been used and the embossing effect has been procured by the application of powders to wet ink in what has been described as the thermographic process.

(2) Using the words "engraved" or "engraving," either alone or in conjunction .with any other word or words, to designate, describe or refer to stationery products unless and until the respondents produce the stationery products so designated, described or referred to by process which consists es?entially in the application of blank stationery to an inked intaglio plate under pressure sufficient to force the surface of the stationery into the letters or designs which are cut or incised on the plate so that the ink in such plate adheres to the stationery to form letters, words, characters or designs .which are in relief and raised' from the general plane of the surface of the stationery.

ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE It is ordel' That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, :file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner alld form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist (as required by said declaratory decision and order of February 1952). ,/.

UNION MILL ENDS 759 Complaint